Who will pick UO’s next President?

Phil Knight, acting through BoT Secretary Angela Wilhelms and Chuck Lillis, or whoever replaces him as BoT Chair. InsideHigherEd had the story on what happened last time, here:

… In an interview, Lillis disputed a newspaper account from the meeting that said he created a process that “reserves broad powers for himself — and a select group of others” by allowing him to conduct the search with an “assist” from the committee members. The Register-Guard said Lillis’s plan gave him sole authority to rank and even eliminate finalists. In an interview Friday evening, he said he’s not on the search committee, would be involved only as a member of the board and would not be “directly involved” until there are some finalists. (Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect further information on the chairman’s broad powers in the following three paragraphs.)

But, the plan voted on by the board clearly gives Lillis more power than he let on.  The search plan approved by the board – which Lillis drew up – gives the chairman power to interview all the search committee’s finalists and a host of other powers.

“The chair is authorized to narrow the field of candidates after consultation with the committee, and is also authorized to rank the candidates,” the plan says.

Inside Higher Ed last week requested all documents that outlined the search plan but was not provided with the actual plan, which has was brought to the site’s attention on Monday by UO Matters, a blog that carefully follows the university. The plan clearly contradicts the chairman’s characterization of his powers in the Friday interview. A spokeswoman for the university, Julie Brown, said Monday the omission was “not intentional.” …

Faculty Club celebrates 3rd anniversary

Dear Colleagues,

The Faculty Club—your very own “study break” from midterm exam grading—is open during the usual hours this week, Wednesday and Thursday from 5:00 to 8:00.

Last week’s Halloween celebration was festive, with a spooky “signature cocktail” and more than half of the attendees in costume. The prize for best costume was shared by Christopher Minson and Andrew Lovering, (Human Physiology), who arrived in oversized, motorized inflatable Toy Story character costumes—clearly out-gunning the competition.

This week we celebrate the third anniversary of the re-founding of the Faculty Club. Yes, our first gathering was in November 2016, the day after that historic presidential election. On that day, and ever since, the club has provided a venue for brainy peers to digest and discuss the craziness of the world. We’ll mark the anniversary with a special toast Thursday evening.

As always, please remember that all faculty members are able and encouraged to bring guests—we hope to see you one or both nights this week.

Yours, James Harper
Chair of the Faculty Club Board

Updated with Barran’s response: UO’s lawyer Paula Barran significantly exaggerated Freyd comparator’s grant to Judge McShane

Update, 11/4/2019:

Dear Readers –

Last week (Halloween to be precise) I received a letter from Attorney Peter Jarvis of the HK law firm. At his request I’ve added the full text to this post (at the bottom) and the pdf is here. He is representing Attorney Paula Barran, who was hired by UO GC Kevin Reed and AGC Doug Park to represent the UO administration against attorney Jennifer Middleton, who is representing Prof. Jennifer Freyd in her gender discrimination lawsuit. So he’s a lawyer for a lawyer who’s a lawyer for other lawyers, at a university whose president is a lawyer.

Frightening. However, I have to say that this is the most polite take-down request I’ve ever received. There’s none of the “govern yourself accordingly” bluster I get from UO GCO Kevin Reed, or the late-night defamation lawsuit threats that I used to get from his predecessors Doug Park and Randy Geller, not to mention Dave Frohnmayer and his lawyer Bill Gary.

Quoting from Mr. Jarvis:

UO Matters self-identifies as a registered institutionalized news media organization. As such, and based upon that public representation, it should hold itself to the journalistic standards expected from other media organizations. Ethical journalism requires authors to take responsibility for the accuracy of the work and ensure that they are not misrepresenting or oversimplifying the story or permitting their personal values to shape their reporting.

… I therefore respectfully request that the Article be retracted and removed from the UO Matters site.

If, however, you decline to do so, a copy of this letter should be posted to the site so that your readers can form their own opinions based on a fuller recitation of the facts and so that UO Matters can more closely comply with the ethical responsibilities expected of a news media organization.

An appeal to ethics is an unusual argument for a lawyer to make – particularly to an economist – but maybe he’s a fan of Adam’s Smith’s other book. In any case tit-for-tat is often the best strategy, so I’m adding the full text of his letter to the bottom of this post.

Additionally, although he did not request this, I am changing the title of the post from the original “UO’s lawyer Paula Barran lied to Judge McShane about Freyd comparator’s grant” to “UO’s lawyer Paula Barran significantly exaggerated Freyd comparator’s grant to Judge McShane” in recognition of the arguments he makes in this letter, which I encourage you to read.

Unfortunately, he then goes on to threaten me with a DMCA takedown notice if I don’t also remove the screenshot of his client below:

The Article includes a screenshot of Ms. Barran’s profile on the Barran Liebman LLP website. Barran Liebman LLP has copyrighted the material on its site and does not grant UO Matters the right to use its copyrighted material. If Barran Liebman LLP’s copyrighted material has not been removed from the UO Matters site within five (5) days, my clients will file a DMCA Takedown Notice.

Seriously? Back in April I sat through two hours of Ms Barran’s legal arguments in front of Judge McShane, and she is ripe for parody. As is anyone who brings up “bodily fluids” more times than Stanley Kubrick. I’m thinking my brief clip from her lengthy profile is allowed under the parody “fair use” provision in copyright law, and of course news-worthiness, as Mr. Jarvis seems to acknowledge this post is.

Of course DMCA takedown orders are frequently abused, and Mr. Jarvis is an attorney with a deep-pocket client, so don’t be surprised if my ISP takes down this post or even this blog for a while – which would be sad, given Ms Barran’s claimed interest in allowing people to form their own opinions.

Original post, 10/17/2019:

UO GC Kevin Reed and his associate GC Doug Park hired “top point getter” Paula Barran to defend the UO administration against Professor Jennifer Freyd’s gender discrimination lawsuit:

Apparently they know better than to dirty their own hands.

As shown in the court transcript below, Barran claimed that one of the comparator faculty Freyd identified was better than Freyd because “he just secured – while this case was pending – a $3 million grant from the Gates Foundation for his work.”

That wasn’t true. The Gates Foundation is admirably transparent:

The truth, corroborated by an email from Prof. Allen, is this:

He was a co-investigator on a grant from the Gates Foundation, but the grant was obtained by colleagues at Berkeley. He had a small subcontract. He also noted that the grant had very little to do with the digital sensing work.

I don’t know what the long-run consequences are for a lawyer who lies to a judge, but it seems from Judge McShane’s opinion dismissing Freyd’s lawsuit that it worked for the UO administration in the short-run:

McShane’s full opinion is here, the full docket is here, and I’ll post Kevin Reed’s retraction of Paula Barran’s $3M claim as soon as I get a copy.

10/17/2019: UO lawyers use helium-cooled MRI brain scanner against Prof Freyd

Freyd is appealing Judge McShane’s dismissal of her gender discrimination lawsuit against UO, with support from Equal Rights Advocates, the AAUP, the AAUW, etc, as explained here. Meanwhile the full transcript from the oral arguments in front of McShane have now been posted here. Some excerpts:

Yes, super-cooled super-conducting 3 Tesla magnets, bodily fluids, and grants can be tools to do good research. But it’s surprising to see a university pay a lawyer to use them to denigrate other research methods. And I wonder how the Gates Foundation feels about being weaponized for use against faculty they don’t fund.

This was almost as funny and not as sad:

Actually it was Judge McShane who said this, not the clerk. And I’m sure he was glaring at Schill when he said it. Or at me.

More 11/4/2019 update, full letter text, pdf here:

October 31, 2019

Via E-mail (harbaugh@uoregon.edu)

Bill Harbaugh
UO Matters
c/o University of Oregon, Department of Economics
1285 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

Re: UO Matters Article Dear Professor Harbaugh:

I represent Paula A. Barran and Barran Liebman LLP, and I am writing in response to the article published on UO Matters on October 17, 2019 titled “UO’s lawyer Paula Barran lied to Judge McShane about Freyd comparator’s grant” (the “Article”). The opinions expressed in the Article about the accuracy of Ms. Barran’s statement to the court are both incorrect and inflammatory. In fact, Ms. Barran’s statements were supported by and based upon the sworn declaration previously submitted to the court by Dr. Nicholas Allen. Calling Ms. Barran’s integrity into question in this manner and in light of the sworn witness declaration simply because you do not agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion does not advance the meaningful thought and discussion that the UO Matters site purports to promote.

UO Matters self-identifies as a registered institutionalized news media organization. As such, and based upon that public representation, it should hold itself to the journalistic standards expected from other media organizations. Ethical journalism requires authors to take responsibility for the accuracy of the work and ensure that they are not misrepresenting or oversimplifying the story or permitting their personal values to shape their reporting. Soc’y of Prof’l Journalists, SPJ Code of Ethics (rev. Sept. 6, 2014), https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

Ethical journalism further requires an author to continue to monitor their story and correct any inaccuracies that may emerge. Id. As discussed further below, the opinions expressed in the Article are inaccurate and must be corrected. I therefore respectfully request that the Article be retracted and removed from the UO Matters site.

If, however, you decline to do so, a copy of this letter should be posted to the site so that your readers can form their own opinions based on a fuller recitation of the facts and so that UO Matters can more closely comply with the ethical responsibilities expected of a news media organization.

I. The Facts

Ms. Barran and her firm Barran Liebman LLP were retained to defend the University of Oregon and Dean Hal Sadofsky against a lawsuit brought by Dr. Jennifer Freyd. Dr. Freyd’s lawsuit alleged several theories of gender discrimination based upon the fact that she received less total compensation than some of her male colleagues. In order to succeed on her claims, Dr. Freyd was required to show that she and her comparators do the same or substantially equal work and that she is comparing “like to like.” Dr. Freyd selected four (4) of her more highly-compensated, male colleagues as comparators, including Dr. Nicholas Allen. Dr. Freyd also called into question whether there were similarities or dissimilarities between her work and the work of her comparators—this legal comparison was not initiated by either the university or her colleagues.

Both the university’s and Dr. Freyd’s attorneys thoroughly briefed the legal issues and provided information to the court about Dr. Freyd’s job duties as compared to the comparators’. The parties provided information to the court about the comparators’ additional responsibilities, such as being a department head, director of a center, or director or member of a university-wide committee, employee supervision, and grant revenue and administration, as well as the effect of retention offers.

Dr. Allen submitted a declaration to the court on November 16, 2018, in which he stated:

Dr. Jennifer Freyd is a valued colleague, and I strongly support the University adopting policies and procedures that support and enhance gender equity in all areas of academic life. I am not in a position to have an informed view on my colleague’s specific litigation, but I understand that it may be beneficial to the court to have information about the nature, extent and scope of my day to day duties, responsibilities and accountabilities.

Decl. of Nicholas B. Allen in Support of Def.’s Univ. of Oregon and Sadofsky’s Mot. for Summ. J., Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:17-cv-00448-MC, Dkt. No. 59, at ¶ 2 (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2018). The declaration then described Dr. Allen’s grant work in the following way:

In terms of the specific research grants I hold, I have obtained or participated in obtaining funding for a 2018-22 research project on Mobile Assessment for the Prediction of Suicide, a grant in excess of $3 million from the National Institute of Child Health and Development for a study of Depressed Mothers’ Parenting (which began in 2015 and will run to 2020), a $2.7 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, on which I spoke as Co-Investigator with my University colleague, Jennifer Pfeifer, doing work on a longitudinal neuroimaging study related to early adolescent mental health. The grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, on which I am Co-Investigator, is an award of $3.5 million to develop and test a learning investigation with a goal of promoting positive gender norm transformative social emotional learning in early adolescents. I have successfully completed a number of grant-funded projects and have developed the skills and experience to work successfully on large funded research projects.

Id. at ¶ 6 (emphasis added). In a subsequent filing made on behalf of Dr. Freyd, Dr. Allen confirmed to the court that “all the information in that declaration was factual.” Decl. of Nicholas B. Allen in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for Relief from J., Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:17-cv-00448- MC, Dkt. No. 59, at ¶ 2 (D. Or. Sept. 10, 2019).

The court heard oral argument on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on April 12, 2019. During oral argument, Ms. Barran reiterated the importance of grants in funding both faculty compensation and research space and equipment. She also recognized that Dr. Freyd “is a good researcher, but her work is different” than some of the work being done by the comparators, including their meeting the requirements imposed by government funding sources. Ms. Barran then highlighted that Dr. Allen had received significant funding for his work, including “a $3 million grant from the Gates Foundation.” This statement was supported by and based on the information that had been provided to her by Dr. Allen and that Dr. Allen had sworn to in his declaration to the court.

The court ruled in favor of the university because the various laws under which Dr. Freyd based her claims require her to show that her day-to-day responsibilities are the same or substantially equal to those of the comparators that she identified. Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:17-cv-00448- MC, Dkt. No. 93, at pp. 10–11 (D. Or. May 2, 2019). The additional responsibilities associated with grant applications, receipt, and management were among several factors considered by the court, and the court’s comparisons between Dr. Freyd on one hand and the comparators (including Dr. Allen) on the other, relied upon the information in the sworn declarations that had been submitted into the court’s record. Id.

Dr. Allen later sent a letter in support of Dr. Freyd’s appeal stating that he personally believes that a different methodology should be used to determine faculty compensation. Decl. of Nicholas Allen, Ex. 1, Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:17-cv-00448-MC, Dkt. No. 109-1 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2019). The letter was also submitted to the district court in support of a motion filed by Dr. Freyd’s attorneys for relief from judgment. Id. The district court considered Dr. Allen’s letter, noted that Dr. Allen reaffirmed the factual accuracy of his original declaration, determined that receiving the letter earlier would not have changed the disposition of the case, and affirmed its grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Opinion and Order, Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, No. 6:17-cv- 00448-MC, Dkt. No. 114 (D. Or. Oct. 25, 2019).

II. Copyright Infringement

The Article includes a screenshot of Ms. Barran’s profile on the Barran Liebman LLP website. Barran Liebman LLP has copyrighted the material on its site and does not grant UO Matters the right to use its copyrighted material. If Barran Liebman LLP’s copyrighted material has not been removed from the UO Matters site within five (5) days, my clients will file a DMCA Takedown Notice.

If you have any questions, concerns, or would like to discuss my demands and requests further, please contact me at Peter.Jarvis@hklaw.com or (503) 243-5877.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Peter R. Jarvis

PRJ:kfk

cc: Clients (via email)

Peter R. Jarvis

+1 503-243-5877 Peter.Jarvis@hklaw.com

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, 2300 U.S. Bancorp Tower | Portland, OR 97204 | T 503.243.2300 | F 503.241.8014 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Prov. Phillips announces Janet Woodruff-Borden as his EVP

Dear University of Oregon Faculty Members,

I am excited to announce that I have selected Graduate School Dean and Vice Provost Janet Woodruff-Borden as the next executive vice provost for academic affairs.

Janet joins the Office of the Provost leadership team where she will lead the academic and faculty affairs efforts. She will oversee the work that promotes and advances provost office responsibilities involving curricular matters, academic training, professional development, online and hybrid education, and employee and labor relations matters.

After a national search, she became dean and vice provost of the UO Graduate School in August 2018, where she made an immediate impact. Janet improved the processes of how her team interfaces with and supports graduate programs within the schools and colleges. She has advanced a number of initiatives in the Graduate School, including development of best practices in graduate recruitment and admissions, professional development, data-informed decision-making, and university graduate education policies. She helped grow the focus on diversity and inclusion across graduate programs, and spurred the creation of innovative program development. She also served as a member of the UO team for bargaining with GTFF.

In Janet, we have someone who has an exemplary track record of scholarly work in developmental psychopathology, has distinguished leadership experience in higher education, and has an understanding of how to support faculty and advance academic excellence. She came to UO from the University of Louisville where she was professor of psychological and brain sciences, associate dean of graduate education in Louisville’s College of Arts and Sciences, and director of graduate studies for the institution’s clinical psychology doctoral program. Her work, both at UO and the University of Louisville, has provided her with an institutional-level perspective that will be a considerable asset to the provost leadership team.

I look forward to working with Janet in this role and she will begin on November 12.

In order to ensure a smooth leadership transition at the Graduate School, I have appointed Professor Kate Mondloch of the College of Design to serve as interim dean and vice provost. Kate is head of the College of Design’s history of art and architecture department, and has been at UO since 2005. She has deep experience with graduate program development and administration at UO. She managed the revitalization of the art history PhD program and oversaw the administrative transfer of the interdisciplinary Graduate Certificate in Museum Studies into her unit. She was the founding director of the transdisciplinary graduate certificate in New Media and Culture, from 2013-2017. Prior to that, she served as director of graduate studies for six years. Kate starts November 12 at the Graduate School but will transition from the rest of her current duties by the end of fall term.

I will be consulting my leadership team, the schools and colleges, and other stakeholders over the next few months to determine how and when we will conduct a search to fill the Graduate School dean and vice provost position permanently.

Finally, I’d like to thank the nine-member search committee, led by Chair Liska Chan, for helping with this process. The committee included members of the faculty, staff, academic leadership, and the University Senate.

Please join me in congratulating both Janet and Kate.

Patrick Phillips
Provost and Senior Vice President

Finally, a survey the faculty and staff actually care about

Not that it will matter:

Dear University of Oregon Faculty, and Staff:

We need your help! Transportation Services conducts a yearly survey to better understand how students, faculty, and staff commute to and from campus. This survey provides a snapshot of commuting trends and your input will help inform transportation planning and programs on campus. Due to a distribution error, your email was not included in the initial survey notification. If a colleague has already forwarded the survey to you, you do not need to retake it.

The survey is anonymous and should take you around 5 minutes or less to complete. It will be open until midnight on November 7, 2019.

When you complete the survey, you may enter your UO email in a raffle to win one of two $50 gift certificates or one of four $25 gift cards to the Duck Store.

The following link will take you to the survey: [Links removed at Josh’s request to avoid messing up his results. Survey was emailed to all fac and staff and a sample of students].

Thank you for your time! Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Josh Kashinsky
Active Transportation Coordinator
Transportation Services

Stupid and offensive Halloween costume & response from Law & Schill

10/31/2019: A Halloween reminder:

11/3/2016 update: 23 Angry Law Professors:

screen-shot-2016-11-03-at-1-30-43-pm

11/2/2016 update: Law Dean writes alumni condeming professor and racism and bigotry, then suspends her from teaching. KEZI posts professor’s explanation and apology. It seems she is not a racist or a bigot – quite the contrary:

The KEZI report is here:

“I chose my costume based on a book that I read and liked—Black Man in a White Coat.  I thought I would be able to teach with this costume as well (or at least tell an interesting story).  When I asked my daughter who is at Brown Medical School the demographics of her medical school class, she said “they do not give those statistics out mom”, but later when she asked the administration, they said there was _not one black male _student in the class. She and others were outraged. She was able to get the administration to assign a portion of this book (the one where the black medical student was thought to be the janitor) out to students.

I am sorry if it did not come off well.  I, of all people, would not want to offend.

Prof. Shurtz”

Dean Michael Moffit’s email to Law School Alumni. He’s opposed to bigotry and racism, for “the safety of all concerned”, and confused about taking time to learn the facts before suspending a professor:

From: University of Oregon School of Law <lawdean@uoregon.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:02 PM

Subject: Message from the Dean

November 2, 2016

Dear Oregon Law Alumni and Friends,

With great frustration about the circumstances that compel me to do so, I write to share with you a message that went out late last night from the President, the Provost, the Vice President of Equity and Inclusion, and me.

As you will read, a University of Oregon School of Law faculty member wore a Halloween costume that included blackface at a private, off-campus party attended by UO faculty members and students. This matter has been turned over to the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity.

This action demonstrated racial insensitivity in a way that is inconsistent with our school’s values, and wholly unacceptable for this institution. We will follow the university’s processes for determining whether the act violated university rules. We obviously don’t know the outcome of that process and it would be inappropriate to speculate. In order to ensure the safety of all concerned and the smooth operation of the law school, I have placed the faculty member responsible on administrative leave pending resolution of the AAEO process.

As dean, I expect all members of the UO School of Law community to provide a welcoming, diverse and inclusive environment at all times. To be clear: We will not tolerate any form of bigotry or racism. Ever.

I have already heard from a number of you, and I am grateful for your feedback. If you would like to reach out to me directly, I would welcome hearing from you.

Michael

Michael Moffitt
Dean
Philip H. Knight Chair in Law
University of Oregon School of Law

Law School

11/1/2016 update: From what I’ve learned so far the professor in blackface was trying – albeit awkwardly and unintentionally offensively – to honor the author of “Black Man in a White Coat”. The NYT review:

… As a medical student at Duke, he feels underprepared among the privileged graduates of fancy schools like Harvard and Yale. (He attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.) On a scholarship for black students, he frets about being written off as a product of affirmative action.

In one chilling incident, a professor mistakes him for the handyman come to change the classroom light bulbs. Rather than making a fuss, Dr. Tweedy triumphs by earning the second-highest grade on the final exam and then declining the startled teacher’s offer of a job.

Such incidents of overt racism are rare, at least among the professionals Dr. Tweedy works with, but a lot of prejudice is flying around. Some patients flatly declare that they don’t like black doctors; even a black patient once snaps that he doesn’t want to be treated by a “country-ass doctor.” Dr. Tweedy feels annoyed at the uneducated black patients who sabotage their health and then feels irritated at himself for his annoyance. …

Good intentions gone awry.

11/1/2016: Maybe some enterprising reporter will now make a public records request for details on the various investigations and consultants reports on how Ms Daugherty has run UO’s Affirmative Action office, and ask how the UO administration has responded. Meanwhile here’s tonight’s email to campus from President Schill:

Students, Faculty, and Staff,

The University of Oregon has been made aware that a faculty member of the School of Law wore a costume that included blackface at a private, off-campus Halloween party that was attended by UO faculty members and students.

We condemn this action unequivocally as anathema to the University of Oregon’s cherished values of racial diversity and inclusion. The use of blackface, even in jest at a Halloween party, is patently offensive and reinforces historically racist stereotypes. It was a stupid act and is in no way defensible.

The faculty member involved has apologized for the decision and has expressed concern about its potential impact on members of the community. Although the party occurred outside of the faculty member’s official duties, the professor acknowledges that the costume choice was unacceptable under any circumstances.

We take seriously any complaints from members of our community, and we have referred this complaint to the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, which will determine whether this action could constitute a violation of university policy.

At a minimum, it illustrates the need for more training and dialogue on these critical issues. In support of this dialogue, the Division of Equity and Inclusion created a UO African American Workshop and Lecture Series to help increase understanding. Implicit bias training is now required for all faculty searches and this winter new trainings on micro-aggressions will be offered. We will continue to assess other trainings or opportunities we can employ to further educate our community.

Bigotry and racism have no place in our society or at the UO. Providing a welcoming, diverse, and inclusive environment for all is one of the university’s top priorities. We have been working for more than a year with our students to further these objectives. This incident makes us even more determined to ensure that no member of the UO community feels isolated or alienated on this campus as a result of intentional or unintentional racist behavior.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Schill, President and Professor of Law         

Scott Coltrane, Provost and Senior Vice President                                                          

Yvette Alex Assensoh, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion                                    

Michael Moffitt, Dean, School of Law

Duck admins get free Jock Box parking, UO students not so much

Reporter Duncan Baumgarten has the news on the latest increase in the Emerald:

The current rate for a day parking pass, based on the University of Oregon Transportation Services website, is $34 a month, $306 for three terms. The rate is new, having increased around a dollar since last year, according to University of Oregon Transportation Services specialist Matthew Gross. Records received by the department show that, since 2014, the price has increased 36%. A night parking pass costs $94 a month, $846 for three terms.

Not a problem for the Duck athletic nomenklatura. They get free parking in the Jock Box parking lot [2015 data]:

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 10.53.15 PM

Here’s the list of beneficiaries:

Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 10.07.58 AM

Eric Roedl, Craig Pintens, – wait, Tim Gleason’s not on the list? The MOU allowing this scam is here:

 Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 10.06.27 PM

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 10.28.09 PM

They’re really claiming that the parking spots were “donated as part of the Jaqua Building Gift”? Actually, t was the other way around. UO gave the land to the athletic department for $1. At the time it was being used as a parking lot, very convenient for the Oregon Hall staff. Of course they had to pay to use it. For regular UO employees, reserved parking spots range from $1200-$1800:

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 10.13.54 PM

Of course regular UO employees don’t get “Courtesy Car Stipends” either:

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 10.00.50 PM

And why is the hunting license fee so high, at $420? Because the Ducks stuck UO with a large part of the bill for the underground Knight Arena garage.

Admin settles with GTFF, no strike

Letter from the President:

We Have a Deal!

Late last night, we reached a tentative agreement with UO administration for our next contract.

After 14 hours of intensive mediation (and an awesome accompanying sit-in in the EMU!), and despite a shady 11th-hour move by the UO bargaining team, we were able to pass them a proposal they agreed to sign.

The next step in our contract campaign is ratification, which is when we get to vote to approve the contract our bargaining committee has spent the last year negotiating. Stay tuned for an update to our bargaining blog with more details of the TA and results of our upcoming vote.

This is a win! Not only did we protect our health care, we have also secured wage increases above inflation, a pilot summer jobs program, 6 weeks of paid parental leave, child care assistance for kids up to the age of 7, protections from ICE and workplace bullying/harassment, and increased GE participation in departmental decision-making.

Thank you all for the organizing work that has brought us to this point. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it a thousand times more—our collective action throughout these last twelve months is what got us this TA, and we mounted an incredible and hard-fought campaign—I’m so proud!

We have built so much power and solidarity as a union and throughout this community. I cannot wait to see what else we are capable of achieving together.
In Solidarity Forever,

Ellen Gillooly-Kress
President of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation
To learn more about our bargaining efforts, visit our website.

OSU administration gives faculty union a 1.8% ultimatum offer

The west coast urban CPI increased 3.1% last year. Mike Gottfredson & his well paid anti-union consultants tried a similar tactic during their effort to fight UO’s faculty union. The accent grave on vis-à-vis is a nice touch though – I wonder how much Ed Ray’s consultant charged for it. I also like the weaselly promise that 

employees in senior academic and administrative leadership roles—including the president, provost, vice presidents and equivalent, vice provosts, associate vice presidents, and deans—will not be eligible to participate in the FY20 salary increase program.

Of course not. They’ve already got theirs.

28 October 2019

Dear OSU Colleagues,

Oregon State University is deeply appreciative of the outstanding contributions, dedication, and hard work of its employees, and the university is committed to attracting and retaining high quality and productive faculty and staff. We strive to support our employees fairly while also balancing competing financial pressures, including challenges in state and federal support for higher education, the imperative to keep the cost of attendance manageable for students, and the need to invest in priorities that advance the university’s mission and financial viability.

As you know, OSU continues to face a challenging budget environment. Mandated state public employee retirement and health insurance costs are rising. Enrollment growth—tuition from which now accounts for 70 percent of OSU’s education and general fund dollars—has slowed. State funding is not keeping pace with continuing service level costs. Meanwhile, units throughout the university managed significant expense reductions in FY18 and FY19, and will do so again in FY20.

At the same time, offering competitive compensation is critical to OSU’s goals to recruit and retain the very best faculty and staff. We do not wish to put the salaries that the university offers at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis our peers, a problem that has a compounding effect that is hard to rectify later.

Therefore, the university has decided again this year to implement a university-wide salary increase program. The scale and scope of the program is what we believe OSU can afford given the many competing needs for resources. Here is an overview of this program:

§  Academic, research and professional faculty members not represented by UAOSU—who have performed at a satisfactory level or better and have received an evaluation within university guidelines—are eligible for salary increase consideration if they were hired into their current position prior to January 1, 2019 and work half-time or more. Eligible faculty with fully satisfactory performance will receive a merit increase of 1.8 percent in their base annual salary rate effective January 1, 2020 for 12-month faculty, and February 1, 2020 for 9-month faculty. An additional increase may be allocated to eligible employees based on performance, compression, and/or equity considerations. The maximum increase an employee may receive in this program is 6 percent (increase for fully satisfactory performance plus any additional discretionary increase). The maximum allocation for the salary program in each academic and administrative budget unit is 3 percent of the unit’s salary base for eligible employees.

§  As OSU is actively engaged in negotiations with UAOSU, we have elected to offer UAOSU the option of accepting—on their members’ behalf—the FY20 salary increase program outlined above. This option is contingent on UAOSU accepting the program for the current year and bargaining for any increases for FY21 and beyond. That is, the offer is contingent on UAOSU’s agreement that this serves as the negotiated salary increase for bargaining unit members for FY20 and that UAOSU will not negotiate any further on the subject of salary increases for that or prior fiscal years. This would ensure that UAOSU-represented faculty are not delayed in receiving a salary increase for FY20 while bargaining continues.

§  Employees represented by the Coalition of Graduate Employees (CGE) bargaining group or classified employees represented by SEIU, will receive increases as set forth in the existing CGE agreement and, if ratified, the new terms of the recent SEIU agreement.

Because of the difficult budget situation, employees in senior academic and administrative leadership roles—including the president, provost, vice presidents and equivalent, vice provosts, associate vice presidents, and deans—will not be eligible to participate in the FY20 salary increase program.

Detailed information regarding the FY20 salary increase program and process timeline will be provided separately to unit leaders, who are responsible for deciding any changes in compensation for their employees.

Please direct any questions to Susan Capalbo, senior vice provost for faculty affairs, or Cathy Hasenpflug, chief human resources officer.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Feser, Provost and Executive Vice President

Mike Green, Vice President for Finance and Administration

When and where will President Schill give his State of the University address?

Traditionally this has been in the fall in front of the UO Senate, followed by some gentle Q&A. I’m assuming that this year’s speech – which I’ll guess will mention “student success” and “innovation” at least 20 times, and include no more than 5 of the devalued “excellence” buzz-word, has been delayed until the GTFF bargaining is settled. Post a comment if you know more.

In 2017, Pres Schill tried to deliver this speech to a crowd of UO boosters at the EMU. That did not go well, though he did get an NYT op-ed out of it – after their assistant editor pushed him to revise and resubmit with more fascism stuff. In 2018 he took it off campus, paying the Eugene City Club $5K for a safe space (and delaying it until Jan 2019).

 

GCO redacts Dearinger & Wilhelms docs on Trustee Elisa Hornecker

They want me to pay $180 for the rest of the docs, but were kind enough to offer this free teaser.

It appears UO’s lobbyists Hans Bernard and Libby Batlan are helping Chuck Lillis and Angela Wilhems stack the UO Board with compliant trustees. They’ve replaced former NBC journalist Ann Curry – known for asking a few tough questions at meetings – with a new trustee from Portland, who’s most notable recent accomplishment is writing puff pieces for the local neighborhood newsletter, Portland Heights Living.

 

There’s a little more on Governor Brown’s public records website here.

Provost Phillips unveils administration’s latest metrics driven hiring plan

No evidence of Senate involvement at https://provost.uoregon.edu/ay2020-21-institutional-hiring-plan

Applying Metrics and Data

The IHP process is intended to be data-informed. Reference data for the IHP process is hosted on the Institutional Research website and will be updated in early November.

The provost expects each proposal to be developed based on institutional metrics (https://provost.uoregon.edu/institutional-metrics), including operational metrics, graduate and undergraduate metrics, and scholarship and excellence (“mission”) metrics as defined by the relevant unit. The Office of the Provost and the IHP advisory groups use these metrics during the proposal review process.

Units are expected to include field availability estimates in their proposals. Provided by Human Resources and Institutional Research (https://ir.uoregon.edu/FAE), field availability estimates give domestic context for the terminal degree field in which a unit is searching. Units may also reference additional data sources within the discipline (e.g., data on international applicant pools, data on postdocs) and what they already know about availability in the field (e.g., insights on graduates who seek positions in academia vs industry).

And of course there will be diversity, as defined by the the administration’s well-paid diversity professionals:

Timeline

  • October 2019: Provost launches the 2020 IHP process, directing deans to work with their faculty to develop hiring proposals for the 2020-21 search year.
  • October 2019 – February 2020: Deans work with faculty to identify needs and generate ideas for faculty searches. Questions about internal school or college IHP processes should be directed to the respective dean’s office.
  • February 7, 2020: Deadline for deans to submit school and college-level proposals to the Office of the Provost.
  • February 2020: Provost reviews proposals and meets with deans individually.
  • March 2020: Provost drafts proposed plan, discusses with Deans Council and Provost’s Faculty Hiring Advisory Committee, reviews** proposed plan for potential diversity impacts, finalizes IHP.
  • Mid-April 2020: Announcement of the 2020 IHP.

** Diversity Portfolio Analysis of the draft IHP will be conducted by a subset of the Active Recruitment Team, including faculty representatives and representatives from the Office of the Provost and the Division of Equity and Inclusion. 

Consider the following when developing proposals:

    • Proposals that are related to negative tenure or pre-tenure personnel decisions will receive special consideration.
    • Proposals that connect with the Presidential Initiative in Data Science (DSI) should be developed in consultation with DSI (datascience@uoregon.edu).
    • The provost will consider clusters of positions if they are proposed by the participating deans and if the cluster clearly supports a substantial and tangible increase in the excellence of the university.
    • Proposals in areas with declining student demand are more likely to be successful in the IHP process if the focus of the position’s research or creative activity is critical to maintaining a well-established excellence in an area that remains central and relevant.
    • Units with historical challenges regarding unit climate and/or faculty retention issues should work with their deans to ensure that a well-articulated plan is in place that directly addresses these issues before submitting an IHP proposal.