Comments may be deleted if your h-index is less than 20. Please use a screen name.
- Tuesday, December 4, 2018 –... (2)
- Betsy DeVos's Title IX rules... (5)
- thedude The key challenge is type I and type II errors are both costly here. I'm don't think there's ever an... – Saturday
- Deplorable Duck Few of us could get a paper published based on p-values of 0.5. Doesn't seem like we should be ruining... – Thursday
- Publius An issue like this should be decided on the basis of sober analysis, not horror-story anecdotes. Those in favor of... – Thursday
- honest Uncle Bernie Perhaps the new rules are better for everyone. Maybe the author figures her message -- which must be hard to... – Wednesday
- Conservative duck Wait...what? What the hell does race have to do with that scenario? Do we not give a hoot if everyone... – Wednesday
- Board of Trustees to perform... (17)
- Deplorable Duck Note that I'm proposing the opposite of stacking. _Every_ department should have its token faction of conservatives. Even the Women's... – Thursday
- Deplorable Duck You're missing the point. This isn't charity or affirmative action--it's an idea for increasing UO enrollment. Conservatives don't need UO.... – Thursday
- Environmental necessity What say I? I say this is the most unworkable and ill-advised proposal in the history of dumb proposals. We... – Thursday
- ODA I find a lot of that appealing; however, in this age of trigger warnings, and the need for safe spaces... – Thursday
- Deplorable Duck The sidebar truncation "Board of Trustees to perform..." evokes a most pleasant image. Perhaps they can realize this next year.... – Wednesday
- Since I am doing applied science, we must have much different definitions of what the word "emphasis" means. The UO... – Wednesday
- honest Uncle Bernie Dog, even I think you are being too gloomy! Apart from the fact that UO lacks huge pieces of the... – Wednesday
- Dog To Wit Become a part of the next class of active, brilliant, determined Ducks. Come ready to innovate, start something,... – Wednesday
- Duck athletes 6x more likely... (3)
- Thedude Is it the athletes, or the binge drinking culture that surrounds college atheletics? – Tuesday
- Remember the Hat Day: November... (16)
- UO students just not that... (4)
- University of Nike podcast (5)
- uofograd Sorry to say this but the Frohnmayer family has more than several million reasons to dislike what Hunt has written. – Friday
- uomatters Please see http://uomatters.com/2018/11/excerpts-and-comments-from-university-of-nike-welcome.html – Friday
- Marla Rae Bill, you really should add the link to the Register Guard for Lynn's op ed in which she points out... – Friday
- Jesus And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,... – Friday
- Dog Having done some time in some capacity at UNM, it strikes me as a rather good comparison that illuminates the... – Friday
- USC senate president to talk... (4)
- Deplorable Duck Maybe a bit cynical, but this might be a pretty good tack to nix the whole thing at UO. A... – Wednesday
- Dog give them all an A+ don't make them do much work get very high evals get a pay raise ...... – Wednesday
- Sun Tzu The delicious irony of the Senate President/UOMatters editor using an article from Around the O, UOMatters' favorite punching bag, to... – Wednesday
- Deplorable Duck There are very few jobs for which performance can be usefully evaluated, and college professing isn't one of them. If... – Tuesday
- Crazy-ass old man threatens to... (17)
- uomatters Thanks Deplorable, I now officially call this discussion thread to an end. Adjourned. – Tuesday
- Deplorable Duck This creative solution hit The Atlantic today. No idea whether it could really fly, but it's the kind of new... – Tuesday
- Fishwrapper I have no problem with legal immigration, as decided by our democracy. First, we are not a democracy, but you... – Tuesday
- Deplorable Duck I have no problem with legal immigration, as decided by our democracy. As it happens, I compete against many such... – Tuesday
- uomatters Very good advice, but I did learn a few things about Jesus. Seems like an interesting guy. In any case,... – Monday
- XDH UOM, Do what you do best and stick to University of Oregon Matters. While I am not in favor of... – Monday
- Fishwrapper I think we can all agree that ten kilodollars towards the issues on the southern border would have the same... – Monday
- A modest proposal to moderate... (5)
- Dog How did you know? My contract explicitly states that my academic salary will = 15% of the Football Coaches annual... – Tuesday
- duckduckgo Our previous offensive coordinator, Scott Frost, is making $5 million a year at Nebraska. Nebraska has a profit of $7... – Tuesday
- uomatters Proposal? What proposal? I merely suggested a little academic accounting theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0HJSKbubE – Monday
- Thanks for you though Your proposal would go a long way to reducing faculty and administrative salaries too – Monday
- Older »
- RT @jjforegon: Confused about Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed sweeping rule changes to Title IX enforcement? and not s… https://t.co/1FO6ykFf43, 52 mins ago
- RT @Urbancic: @uomatters UMich is a public and an aspirational comparator. Maybe our GC's office should talk to theirs. Also, fo… https://t.co/y5M1PfbBPv, 1 hour ago
- RT @mrfearless47: @JacquelynGill @uomatters I always found that pizza and beer had a more positive effect on evals than cookies. FWIW., 18 hours ago
- RT @Tobin_Tweets: Well well well... cc: @JeffmanningOre https://t.co/V2XNASN9jo, Dec 8
- RT @kennyjacoby: “The University of Oregon has repeatedly denied that any of its employees have been subpoenaed by investigators. Bu… https://t.co/MtCt3KCfVq, Dec 8
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Dana Altman Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Diversity Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) free speech Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing Lorraine Davis March 8-9 rape allegations Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor Pernsteiner PERS Public Records Public Safety Randy Geller General Counsel Research money Richard Lariviere: UO President Robert Berdahl Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Tim Gleason Track and Field Championships Uncategorized UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- Betsy DeVos’s Title IX rules are better than the Obama admin’s 12/05/2018
- Duck athletes 6x more likely to be reported for sexual misconduct than all students 12/04/2018
- Tuesday, December 4, 2018 – 10:00 a.m. Board Meeting 12/04/2018
- 3:00 p.m. Finance and Facilities Committee 12/03/2018
- 2:00 p.m. Executive and Audit Committee 12/03/2018
- Board of Trustees to perform due diligence Mon and Tue 12/02/2018
- University of Nike podcast 11/30/2018
- Senate meets today, 3-5PM on teaching evals, leg agenda, dual careers 11/28/2018
- USC senate president to talk about teaching evaluation reform 11/27/2018
- A modest proposal to moderate coaches’ compensation 11/26/2018
- Crazy-ass old man threatens to shoot neighborhood kids 11/23/2018
- Interest in “Civil War” game falls to new low under coach Mario Cristobal 11/23/2018
- Remember the Hat Day: November 21 11/22/2018
- Provost Banavar appoints members to CAS analysis task force 11/20/2018
- UO students just not that into Duck football 11/20/2018
- Univ pays $35K to bail from Foundation’s appeal of public records decision 11/20/2018
- Grad student union unequivocally condemns University for hosting speaker 11/18/2018
- Michael Bloomberg gives $1.8B for need-based aid at Johns Hopkins 11/18/2018
- UO Pres Michael Schill should fire Duck Coach Mario Cristobal for cause: 11/16/2018
- Angry Duck coach Dana Altman snarls at his unpaid UO student-athletes 11/16/2018
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 12
4 NTTF EVALUATION and PROMOTION
6 Section 1. All departments and programs that employ non-tenure-track faculty must have
7 a faculty-approved evaluation and promotion criteria policy for their NTTF. This policy
8 shall be made available to faculty and must be published on the Academic Affairs
9 website. Revisions to these criteria may not be applied so as to materially harm a
10 currently-employed faculty member’s progress toward promotion.
12 While the details and structure of NTTF evaluation are the responsibility of the
13 immediate academic unit in which the appointment is made, evaluations must follow
14 some general guidelines:
16 1. NTTF should be evaluated every 18 courses taught or 3 calendar years, whichever
17 comes first, but NTTF can request more frequent evaluations.
19 2. NTTF in instructional appointments are expected to have student course
20 evaluations offered for all courses with 10 or more students, and will undergo at
21 least one peer review of teaching each year. NTFF must be provided notice of the
22 standards for teaching on which he or she will be evaluated. The academic unit
23 shall identify the standards to be applied to such evaluation, and shall establish a
24 time frame for notification to the faculty member before a peer review is
27 3. NTTF in research appointments will be evaluated for the quality of the effort
28 expended and the outcomes of their contributions to the research program.
30 4. NTTF will be asked to discuss their efforts and performance with their immediate
31 supervisor at least once each evaluation period.
33 5. NTTF will submit a 3-5 page personal statement developed by the faculty
34 member that describes his or her conceptual, theoretical scholarly orientation,
35 productivity, service work, and impact. This personal statement should
36 correspond to the structure and general content expected of the statement that will
37 be required for promotion.
39 6. NTTF can only be evaluated on his or her professional development activities that
40 require funding in relation to the access they have had to professional
41 development funding from their department.
422 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 Evaluations of NTTF are for the purpose of determining if the faculty member is meeting
2 the standard of excellence appropriate to a major research university. They should be
3 designed to help the faculty member grow as a scholar, identify areas of strength, and
4 identify areas that need improvement. If the faculty member is a Career NTTF, the
5 evaluation must indicate if the faculty member is progressing toward promotion. If the
6 faculty member is not progressing toward promotion, the evaluation should identify
7 specific areas for improvement.
9 Section 2. Only Career NTTF are eligible for promotion. Career NTTF will be eligible
10 for promotion to the first senior level after accumulating eighteen (18) terms (consecutive
11 or not) of service, accrued at no greater than three (3) terms per academic year.
13 Section 3. Promotion is elective and does not involve an “up-or-out” decision.
14 Candidates wishing to be considered for promotion should notify their appropriate unit
15 head in the year prior to the year when promotion is sought, or equivalent FTE, in rank.
16 Career NTTF who do not wish to be considered for promotion may continue employment
17 at their current rank as long as eligible to do so under Article 9, Contracts.
19 An accelerated promotion review can occur in a meritorious case or when credit for prior
20 service at another institution has led to a contractual agreement to this effect at the time
21 of hire. The terms of hire should make clear where on the timeline an individual faculty
22 member stands; from that time on, subsequent advances in rank will be awarded
23 according to established promotion procedures. In all other cases in which credit for prior
24 service at another institution is agreed upon, scholarly work completed by the faculty
25 member during those years will receive full consideration during the promotion process.
27 Should a faculty member who has agreed to an accelerated review at the time of hire
28 choose to delay that review for the full six years of full time service, scholarly work
29 completed prior to arrival at the University of Oregon will be of secondary consideration
30 during the promotion and tenure process and consideration of scholarly achievement will
31 focus on work completed during the six full time years of service at the University of
34 Section 4. For faculty members holding multiple or joint appointments, a Memorandum
35 of Understanding will be entered into at the time of hire or assignment between the
36 different employing units specifying the expectations for promotion and tenure review.
38 Section 5. The Family Leave policy can affect the timing of promotion by “stopping the
39 clock” for a pre-specified and contractual period of time. Faculty members considering
40 such leaves should consult Article 24, Leave and the Office of Human Resources Leaves
41 Website. Faculty members should discuss the timing of leave and its relation to the
42 promotion decision with the department head who may also consult with the dean and the 3 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 provost to ensure that there is appropriate and clear written documentation of leave
4 Promotion Review
5 Section 6. Academic and research units must have on file and provide to their Career
6 NTTF statements of criteria for evaluation and promotion of Career NTTF. A unit’s
7 promotion review process will commonly include a review committee, and this
8 committee should include NTTF at or above the rank sought by the candidate in addition
9 to any tenure-track faculty. At no point in the review process can a faculty member be
10 evaluated by any standards other than those on file and provided to the faculty member.
12 Each unit, with appropriate communication with the appropriate dean/director, should
13 determine whether or not external review will be included as part of the review and
14 promotion process for Career NTTF. If external reviewers are included, reviewers should
15 be those who can present an unbiased, knowledgeable, and objective evaluation of the
16 candidate and his/her qualifications. Eternal reviewers must base his or her evaluation
17 and judgment on the criteria in use by the academic department or program.
19 Internally, it is to be expected that those serving in supervisory roles to the candidate
20 (e.g., department head for Instructors, research mentor for Research Assistants, etc.) –
21 will provide letters of evaluation.
23 Required elements of a promotion file include:
25 Statement of duties and responsibilities
26 A candidate’s statement
27 Letters of evaluation.
28 Candidate may propose names of qualified outside referees, some of whom will
29 be contacted, if necessary
30 Statement of waiver, partial waiver, or non-waiver
31 Conditions of appointment
32 Departmental criteria for promotion
33 Memorandum(s) of Understanding between departments in the case of joint
35 Teaching evaluations and supplemental teaching materials
36 Evidence of professional activities
37 Department committee recommendation
38 Department head’s evaluation and recommendation
39 Dean’s Advisory Committee recommendation, where applicable
40 Dean’s evaluation and recommendation
41 Voting summary4 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 Section 7. Faculty members may choose to waive in advance their legal right of access to
2 see the evaluative materials submitted by all referees in conjunction with their promotion
3 and/or tenure review. Such waivers shall not, however, preclude redacted versions of
4 these documents may, however, being used during the denial of promotion appeals
5 process described in Article 14, Tenure Denial Grievance.
7 Section 8. Faculty members shall receive at least three (3) days notice of any meeting or
8 hearing related to the promotion process and an agenda for the meeting. Faculty members
9 have the right to have a Union representative or colleague present at any such hearings or
12 Section 9. Following the unit’s review and evaluation of the promotion file, the unit
13 head or director will prepare a report on the merits of the promotion case, including a
14 voting summary and his/her independent recommendation. If the unit chooses to have a
15 unit-level review committee prepare a report and recommendation, this report should be
16 included with the unit head or director’s report.
18 The file will then be sent to the dean of the academic unit in which the department is
21 Section 10. Individual colleges may or may not choose to include a review by an
22 advisory committee prior to the dean’s recommendation. If they do, it will be necessary
23 for that college to constitute an appropriate NTTF Dean’s Advisory Committee (NTTF-
24 DAC), comprised primarily of tenured or tenure-track faculty, but also including
25 members who are themselves NTTF.
27 The dean (or other appropriate administrative head, for those units not reporting through
28 an academic dean) will prepare a report on the merits of the promotion case, including a
31 The file will then be sent to Academic Affairs.
33 Section 11. The Provost will review the file, with input from Academic Affairs and/or the
34 Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation, and make a decision as to
35 whether to grant or deny promotion.
37 This notification will be provided in writing to the candidate by June 15.
39 Section 12. If, at any point in the promotion process a faculty member receives a
40 negative vote or evaluation, he or she will be notified, provided an written explanation of
41 the negative vote or evaluation from the appropriate supervisor (i.e., department head,
42 dean, Provost, or President), and the opportunity to submit rebuttal material within ten
43 (10) days.5 December 13 and 14, 2012
2 Section 13. Successful candidates for promotion will assume their new rank beginning
3 with the following Fall term, or the nearest next term of employment should their
4 contract not begin with the Fall term.
6 Successful candidates for promotion will receive a salary adjustment of at least 10%,
7 effective simultaneously with assumption of the new rank (see Article 20, Salary).
9 Section 14. Faculty who are denied promotion may appeal the decision through the
10 procedures in Article 14, Tenure Denial Grievance.
12 Unsuccessful candidates for promotion will remain employed at their current rank, as
13 long as their failure to achieve promotion was not for reasons that warrant termination
14 (see Article 9, Contracts or Article 18, Discipline and Termination). Career NTTF who
15 are terminated will receive timely notice and a terminal contract. If NTTF have served
16 three (3) or more years at .50 FTE or greater, they will receive the same timely notice as
17 tenure-track faculty (i.e., a year’s notice of non-renewal).
19 Career NTTF who are unsuccessful at securing promotion may be considered for
20 promotion again after accumulating an additional nine (9) terms (consecutive or not) of
21 service at .50 FTE or greater, accrued at no greater than three (3) terms per academic
23 Section 15. NTTF holding “affiliate,” “adjunct,” “visiting,” “fellow,” “postdoctoral” or
24 “emeriti,” appointments are not eligible for promotion. All faculty, however, shall have
25 the right to petition for rank reclassification if they believe that their work was
26 misclassified at the time of first hire or their position has evolved to more closely
27 resemble a different classification.
28 Adjunct NTTF who believe that their positions should be Career NTTF appointments,
29 can petition for reclassification after completing their second year of appointment and/or
30 evaluation as described in this Article (see also Article 2, Academic Rank).
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 10
6 Preamble. It is recognized that, given the diverse nature of faculty work, the varying
7 types of faculty appointments and the needs of the departments and academic units, the
8 weighting of assignments and the particulars of individual assignments will vary both
9 between and within individual departments and academic units.
11 Section 1. For most faculty, workload consists of some combination of instructional
12 activities (including class preparation, classroom teaching, evaluation of student work,
13 advising and mentoring, and various forms of communication with students); research,
14 scholarship, creative activity; and service, within the department, school or college, and
15 university, and outside the university.
17 Section 2. All departments and programs must have a faculty-approved policy that
18 defines workload expectations for all academic ranks employed by the department or
19 program. While faculty shall have the flexibility to design a policy that fits their
20 particular department, no policy can violate the university-valued principles of
21 transparency, fairness, equality, and participation. Such policies should recognize
22 differences in research methodology and results, as well as course type, size, and
23 pedagogy. These differences should be taken into account in setting workload
26 Section 3. The workload policy shall define a 1.0 FTE workload for all academic
27 instructional ranks (including tenure-related ranks, career NNT instructors and lecturers,
28 and adjunct instructors) employed by the department or program and shall address how
29 each of the following items contribute to the overall FTE. For non-instructional ranks or
30 where tenure-related or non-tenure track faculty are not primarily instructional, specific
31 job descriptions should be developed to address the particular workload of the faculty
32 member. Instructional faculty workloads will, in general, address the following:
34 a) Course load (including courses and student credit hours, both regular offerings,
35 irregular offerings including, for example, FIGS, 1-credit course, and independent
36 study credits). If different course types are “weighted” differently, then
37 equivalences should be specified as well (e.g., if a large class is “worth” the
38 equivalent to 1.5 regular offerings)
39 b) Service expectations (including internal and external service expectations, not
40 including graduate advising). Service expectations should recognize different
41 types of service commitments (e.g. “weighing” FAC, FPC, DAC, and department
42 and program management functions service as “more” than less time consuming
43 committee assignments)2 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 c) Research, scholarship, creative activity
2 d) Professional development expectations related to teaching or service
3 e) Undergraduate and graduate advising expectations
4 f) Office hours and communication expectations
5 g) Course release policy
7 Workload policies should also describe a fair and transparent process for accounting for
8 individual faculty needs when assigning workload. Factors to consider include but are
9 not limited to:
11 a) Number of new course preparations
12 b) Balance of workload components based on faculty review, promotion and tenure,
13 professional development expectations and research agenda
14 c) Extra administrative duties
15 d) Timing of activities (e.g., publication and grant deadlines, course load in given
16 terms, and promotion review dates)
18 Given the complexities of faculty work, it is expected that workload policies will not just
19 describe workload as the number of courses taught per term/year without clear processes
20 for accounting for the many differences in activities and faculty needs. Workload policies
21 should also reflect the importance of service, including administrative duties.
23 Section 4. An individual’s particular workload shall be assigned with the expectation that
24 the faculty member will have the opportunity to meet the criteria for all reviews,
25 including promotion and tenure. Assignments shall reflect
27 a) The academic needs of the department or program
28 b) The faculty member’s qualifications and expertise
29 c) The faculty member’s evolving professional interests
30 d) The best practices in the field
32 Department heads or program directors shall be responsible for the scheduling and
33 assignment of all faculty under their direction. In units where there is no department
34 head, the dean or designee will be responsible for the scheduling and assignment of all
35 faculty under his or her direction. The department head or dean will maintain annually a
36 written record of assignments for each faculty member after consultation with the faculty
37 member. Consultation will take place no later than in the Spring term for the coming
38 academic year and will include a discussion of schedule as well as other assignments.
39 The faculty member shall be afforded the opportunity to present his or her preferences
40 regarding assignments before they are assigned.
413 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 A department head, program director, or dean may modify scheduled assignments,
2 provided that the department head discuss changes with the faculty member before they
3 are made and changes are not made for arbitrary or capricious reasons.
5 Faculty members may request to adjust workload scheduled or assignments.
7 Any administrative stipends or academic support resources associated with work
8 assignments must be awarded in accordance with a clearly stated policy that does not
9 violate the university-valued principles of transparency, fairness, equality, and
12 Section 5. Overload compensation is any compensation, other than an administrative
13 stipend, paid to a faculty member who is assigned work beyond that specified in the
14 workload policy.
16 The following activities are typical sources of overload compensation:
17 a) continuing education
18 b) extension service
19 c) intra-campus consulting
20 d) seminars and similar services
21 e) advising more students than listed in the workload policy
22 f) teaching classes above the number defined as workload expectation at 1.0 FTE in
23 departmental policy
25 Section 6. Regular on-campus classes as well as time spent in support of grant and
26 research activities shall not be allowable activities for overload compensation except
27 under extraordinary or emergency circumstances.
29 Section 7. Overload assignments may only be used in emergency situations. Departments
30 and programs are obligated to employ sufficient faculty to perform all expected work
31 within the department. No faculty member can be disciplined or terminated for refusing
32 an overload assignment.
34 Section 8. Overload appointments will be assigned an FTE percentage commensurate
35 with normal workload duties and compensated accordingly. Faculty may request that
36 overload compensation take the form of class release.
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 4
4 PAST PRACTICES
6 Section 1. All practices and policies concerning terms and conditions of employment,
7 including all policies, resolutions, and legislation approved by the University Senate, in
8 effect on the date this Agreement is executed which affect faculty shall be maintained for
9 the period of this Agreement, unless modified by this Agreement or by mutual consent.
11 Section 2. Any ambiguities between past practices, as herein defined, and other Articles
12 of this Agreement shall be resolved in favor of such other Articles.
14 Section 3. In the event that the Administration grants an increase in benefits to any
15 employees not covered by this agreement, such increase shall be provided to faculty as
16 well. There shall be no reduction in benefits during the term of this Agreement.
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 3
4 SHARED GOVERNANCE
7 Oregon state law, the University of Oregon’s original Charter and Constitution, as well as
8 long-established practice recognize the vital role of shared governance between the
9 University Senate and the Administration, both in setting priorities and making policy on
10 academic matters and as a guarantee of the freedom upon which excellence in higher
11 education depends. Although United Academics, as the elected and certified bargaining
12 agent, retains the exclusive right to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of
13 employment for members of the bargaining unit, the parties recognize the necessity of a
14 collegial governance system for faculty and of the University Senate’s authority to
15 legislate in matters of academic concern. It is mutually desirable that the collegial system
16 of governance, as established in the Constitution of December 15, 2011, be maintained
17 and strengthened so that faculty will have a mechanism and procedure, independent of
18 the collective bargaining process, for legislating in all academic matters.
20 Section 1. The faculty, acting through the University Senate, Senate Committees, unit
21 committees, and in accordance with the UO Constitution, Senate Bylaws, and the
22 University Senate Policy on Policies is responsible for the review and establishment of
23 policy in issues that relate to academic matters as commonly understood in higher
24 education, as specified in the University Senate Constitution and Bylaws, subject to the
25 approval processes therein specified. These issues include, but are not limited to:
26 a. all curricular matters, including the course of study, materials used, class size,
27 and establishment, dissolution and substantial changes of degree programs
28 b. admissions standards and prerequisites
29 c. research and scholarship
30 d. requirements for regular certificates and degrees
31 e. regulations regarding attendance, examinations, grading, evaluation student of
32 performance, scholastic standing and honors
33 f. teaching methods and quality
34 g. professional standards and criteria for positions accorded academic rank
35 h. other academic matters referred to it by the Board of Higher Education, the
36 university administration, the faculty of a school, college, department, Extension
37 or the Libraries or other members of the university community
38 i. approval of the academic calendar prepared by the Registrar
39 j. unit committees
40 k. the regulations concerning and the awarding of honorary degrees
42 Section 2. The faculty, acting through the University Senate and Senate Committees, unit
43 committees, and in accordance with the UO Constitution, Senate Bylaws, and the 2 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 University Senate Policy on Policies shall review, recommend, and participate in the
2 formulation of all other policy relating to matters of concern to the university community
3 including, but not limited to:
4 a. institutional priorities
5 b. the allocation and utilization of the university’s human, fiscal and physical
7 c. academic organization, including the establishment or elimination of colleges
8 and departments and the reorganization of the general university and college
9 academic structure
10 d. admissions procedures and quotas
11 e.. student financial aid and tuition
12 f.. the library, the academic computing center, instrumentation and model
13 facilities, audiovisual center, university bookstore, the museum, supporting
14 services, etc. as they affect scholarly activities and research
15 g. administrative procedures and organizational structures
16 h.. the appointment, review, and promotion of academic and policy-level
17 administrative officers, including all those at the budget management level whose
18 functions are university-wide
19 i. the selection of the President of the University, Provost and Vice Presidents
20 whenever those offices become vacant or are created
21 j. donations of money and other resources to the university
22 k. the distribution of unrestricted funds made available to the university for
23 discretionary allocation in support of research or scholarly work
25 Section 3. Departments or other traditional governance structures (unit) shall have an
26 active and significant role in academic matters as defined in Sections 1 and 2 of this
27 Article. The faculties of the colleges and departments shall make their own constitutions
28 and bylaws by which to conduct their respective governance responsibilities. Such
29 bylaws shall be subject to review and approval by appropriate dean or Vice President.
31 (a) The faculty members of each department/unit, by majority vote, shall establish
32 bylaws, which must pass Administrative review. Governance in the
33 departments/units shall be conducted in accordance with their respective bylaws,
34 which shall be filed with the appropriate academic administrators and posted on
35 the department/unit web sites.
37 (b) The bylaws of each department/unit shall include procedures for faculty
38 members to share significantly in unit-related governance responsibilities as
39 defined in Sections 1 and 2 of this Article, including but not limited to program
40 review; department/unit review; department/unit reorganization; development of
41 criteria for tenure, promotion, and merit salary increases; curricular matters
42 including class sizes, courses of study, major/minor/certificate requirements;
43 selection of department heads and/or chairs and certain other academic 3 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 administrators; procedures for amending bylaws; charges, powers and
2 responsibilities of governance committees; make-up of committees, including
3 numbers of TTF, NTTF, students, administrators, and others where appropriate;
4 process for electing committee members; clear guidelines that delineate what
5 matters committees can decide on and what matters require full-faculty vote;
6 procedures for faculty voting; and other matters of professional concern.
8 Nothing in this Article shall be construed as abridging traditional rights of self-
9 governance of departments/units, to the extent those rights are exercised in accordance
10 with the statutes and policies of the university and with this Agreement.
12 Section 4. No faculty member will be subject to discrimination, discipline or termination
13 resulting from participation in the system of shared governance.
Note – not yet active!
UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
5 This Agreement, entered into as of the date of ratification, is between the State of
6 Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon State Board of Higher Education on behalf of
7 the University of Oregon, herein referred to as Administration, and United Academics,
8 American Association of University Professors – American Federation of Teachers, AFL-
9 CIO, herein referred to as Union.
10 The intent and purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that working conditions allow all
11 faculty to pursue excellence and innovation in education, research and service at the
12 University of Oregon and both to uphold the mission of the University of Oregon and
13 strengthen civil society through a vibrant system of public education. The parties
14 recognize that good faith collective bargaining is a means of achieving this purpose and
15 that such collaboration will contribute to the interests of the University of Oregon.
12/20/2015 – to be updated.
The promise of $40M in Oregon public money to support IAAF championship:
Video of Lananna and Track Town supporters making their bid presentation for 2019 to Lamine Diack and the IAAF. Kitzhaber promising “as much as $40M dollars to support your championships”:
Some emails regarding that promise:
UO’s Hans Bernhard forwarding Kitzhaber’s updated letter for the 2015 bid package:
The letter: 2.6.15_Diack
UO’s Hans Bernhard’s presentation to the UO Board of Trustees, pledging that *UO* will make getting this $40M for a track meet one of it’s highest legislative priorities for the Oregon legislative session that starts 2/1/2016. The claim is that this will not be a trade-off for money to support UO’s academic side. Sure it won’t:
UO Foundation CEO Paul Weinhold pledging his foundation will make good any shortfalls:
Boston mayor bails on Olympic bid after reporters uncover similar shenanigans:
“This is a commitment I cannot make without assurances that Boston and its residents will be protected,” Walsh said. “I refuse to mortgage the future of the city away. I refuse to put Boston on the hook for overruns. And I refuse to commit to signing a guarantee that uses taxpayer dollars to pay for the Olympics.”
Some misc pdfs:
While UO can’t find room to house its new students, classrooms to teach them in, or offices for the faculty, UO’s VP for Finance Frances Dyke recently made the tough call to spend $2.4 million renovating and remodeling administrative suites in Johnson Hall. Where do you think her office is?
Money quote: “Funding was set aside from the Capital Repair budget that I manage for these repairs.” So where did the rest of the $2.4 million come from?
From: Frances Dyke
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: Johnson Hall Projects
Here is the information you requested on the Johnson Hall renovations as summarized by the project managers. Just a few notes to help you decipher this: Suite 3 is on the west side of the ground floor. Suite 7 is on the east side of the ground floor. One thing that is not mentioned in the narrative below is that the bathroom renovation on the south side of the second floor upgraded a bathroom to meet accessibility standards. Until this project was finished the only accessible bathroom was on the ground level.
We have been working on 7 different projects in Johnson Hall over the last year.
The initial project was a heating system renovation, as the system in the building was failing, terribly inefficient, and ineffective. A study was done regarding this project 4 years ago. Funding was set aside from the Capital Repair budget that I manage for these repairs.
The project was defined as a two phase project. The first being the basement, the second phase included the top two floors. These were set up as two separate contracts as initially the timing for these projects were conceived to be a year apart. They ended up being separated by less time as the second floor renovation occurred which made it far more cost effective to incorporate the timing of the HVAC upgrade at the same time as the second floor renovation so no newly replaced finishes would be damaged with the addition of a new heating system. It took a major coordination effort on the part of a couple of my project managers, but it worked out very well.
The second floor renovation project was driven by a need to more efficiently layout the second floor, and re-organize it to fit the structure of the departments that were located on that floor. This project incorporated all of our current sustainable practices in lighting, finishes, HVAC controls, etc.
The Suite 3 and Suite 7 renovations were requested by different departments to better organize their spaces, which enabled the creation of new work stations. These new work stations are more private as well and a step forward in our attempt to stop identity theft in the workplace. This work was undertaken while the space was empty for the HVAC renovation. Again this created the opportunity for efficiency based upon the fact that there was not an additional loss of productivity for another departmental move. As well, we again put significant effort into coordinating multiple contracts in this space to create the most cost effective renovation effort possible. Some of the work in this area ended up being completed slower than was desired due to some delays in the design and permitting process.
While we had a large portion of the building affected by the construction we installed a fire sprinkler system in the building. Johnson Hall has been high on the priority list for a long time. As it holds many critical records for the campus, it has long needed this system installed. We were able to install this system within the building without creating a significant increased impact to the users.
We also made a modification to the telecommunication closet within the building. This was an issue that was partially brought on by a necessary relocation driven by the second floor project, the other was that the existing closet was far below the standards of other campus systems so the opportunity was taken by the telecommunication department to upgrade the system to current standards.
The funding for the projects is as indicated below.
Basement HVAC Replacement Project (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 800,000
Current Expenditures $ 694,489
Projected Costs $ 716,111
1st and 2nd Floor HVAC Replacement Project (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 511,000
Current Expenditures $ 431,438
Projected Costs $ 445,098
2nd Floor Renovation Project
Project Budget $ 799,015
Current Expenditures $ 623,885
Projected Costs $ 704,265
Suite 3 Renovation
Project Budget $ 134,280
Current Expenditures $ 92,934
Projected Costs $ 115,477
Suite 7 Renovation
Project Budget $ 98,645
Current Expenditures $ 70,244
Projected Costs $ 90,957
Fire Sprinkler Installation/Alarm Upgrade (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 310,000
Current Expenditures $ 170,504
Projected Costs $ 218,952
Telecommunication Closet Upgrade
Project Budget $ 135,000
Current Expenditures $ 116,100
Projected Costs $ 128,691
Frances L. Dyke
CFO and Vice President for Finance and Administration