Should a donor dictate who is President?

Insidehighered has an interesting story on UNLV here:

… Big gifts are sometimes based on the relationships between donors and university leaders. But in this case, the link was formal. UNLV agreed to Jessup remaining president until 2022 (as well as the medical dean staying in office) as conditions of the gift. And the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Jessup signed that agreement nine days after he received the unfavorable review from his boss. A lawyer retained by the chancellor to examine the agreement, in a memo obtained and published by the Review-Journal, said that it raised serious ethical issues.

The memo said the agreement could be seen as “a pre-emptive strike” in response to Jessup’s unfavorable review, and that signing the agreement gave him a “significant financial benefit.” Whatever the legal issues, the lawyer said, “the optics are appalling.” …

Which reminds me – who has seen the Knight Campus gift agreement?

Live from Provost Banavar’s Metrics Town Hall:


Sorry, I can’t type fast enough to get everything. Some highlights from the town hall:

Banavar, Berkman, and Pratt are on stage. Shelton (EW interview with some unfortunate quotes here) has been relegated to the admin table towards towards the back. Obviously the administration is backing away as fast as they can from past proposals and the adults are now in charge.

Banavar announces he’s pushing back the deadline for departments to provide their metrics plans and data to JH from April 6 to June 6.

He also announces that he’s signed an MOU with the faculty union that will ensure that, whatever the administration decides on, there will be faculty input and negotiation.

The link to Berkman’s Metrics “blog” is here. No comments allowed – or at least there are none posted.

The faculty and heads are asking many very skeptical questions about how these metrics will guide resource allocations and influence faculty research goals.

Berkman closes by saying that Harbaugh’s criticisms of the metrics proposal, based on the work of Nobel Laureate Bengt Holmstrom, are off base because those relate to “strong financial incentives” and these metrics will only provide weak incentives.

It’s hard to respond to that when we don’t know what the departments metrics plans will actually be, but inevitably they will become guidelines for junior faculty to follow if they want tenure, and everyone to follow if they want merit raises, new colleagues, and to be seen as good department and university citizens, get responses to outside offers, etc. Those are pretty strong incentives, financial or not, and they will result in gaming and discouraging work that is not measured, just as Hengtrom’s research shows.

My takeaway is that this has been a botched 2 year effort by the administration, and it has taken a huge amount of faculty effort – away from our other jobs – to push back and try and turn it into something reasonable. We’ll see what happens.

Banavar, Pratt, and Berkman did not discuss the “faculty tracking software” that UO will be purchasing next year. This software will allow them to track faculty activities, and will generate reports comparing those activities across faculty, across departments, over time, etc.

There appears to be no truth to the rumors that this software will interface with the mandatory new faculty ankle bracelets to provide JH with real-time GPS location tracking, or that this is all part of the Tracktown 2021 championship plan.

Update: Rumor has it that the UO administration’s obsession with research metrics and Academic Analytics started with the hiring of Kimberly Espy as VPR.

After alienating everyone on campus except former Interim Provost Jim Bean, Espy was finally forced out thanks to the UO Senate’s threatened vote of no confidence and a blunt report written by CAS Assoc Dean Bruce Blonigen. History here.

Gottfredson appointed Brad Shelton as her interim replacement, and new VPR David Conover is still picking up the pieces.

Part of Espy’s legacy was UO’s ~$100K contract with Academic Analytics, which finally expires this December, for a total of $600K down the hole. While Shelton enthusiastically defends this sunk cost in the Eugene Weekly, no one else in the UO administration will admit to ever using Academic Analytics data as an input for any decision.

Despite this craziness, it’s still an open question as to whether or not Shelton, Conover, and Banavar will renew the contract, which Academic Analytics and their salesman and former UO Interim President Bob Berdahl are now pitching at $160K a year.

3/12/2018: UO physicist, Psychology Dept kick off Provost’s Friday Metrics Town Hall early, propose sensible alternatives to Brad Shelton’s silly metrics plan

A week or two back CAS started a “metrics blog” to collect suggestions on how departments could respond to the call from VPxyz Brad Shelton for simple metrics that the administration could use to rank departments and detect changes over time to help decide who will get new faculty lines. Or maybe the call was for information that they could show to Chuck Lillis and the trustees about how productive/unproductive UO’s faculty are. Or maybe it was a call for departments to provide information that Development could pitch to potential donors. All I know for sure is that departments are supposed to respond by April 6th with their perfect algorithm.

Ragu Parthasathaway from Physics has taken up the challenge, on his Eighteenth Elephant Blog:

… These are extreme examples, but they illustrate real differences between fields even within Physics. Biophysical studies typically involve one or at most a few labs, each with a few people contributing to the project. I’d guess that the average number of co-authors on my papers is about 5. High-energy physics experiments involve vast collaborations, typically with several hundred co-authors.

Is it “better” to have a single author paper with 205 citations, or a 2900-author paper with 11000 citations? One could argue that the former is better, since the citations per author (or even per institution) is higher. Or one could argue that the latter is better, since the high citation count implies an overall greater impact. Really, though, the question is silly and unanswerable.

Asking silly questions isn’t just a waste of time, though; it alters the incentives to pursue research in particular directions. …

In other words, this particular silly question is worse than a waste of time. Ulrich Mayr, chair of UO’s Psychology department (UO’s top research department, according the the National Research Council’s metrics, FWIW) has met with his faculty, and they have a better idea:

As obvious from posts on this blog, there is skepticism that we can design a system of quantitative metrics that achieves the goal of comparing departments within campus or across institutions, or that presents a valid basis for communicating about departments’ strengths and weaknesses.  The department-specific grading rubrics may seem like a step in the right direction, as they allow building idiosyncratic context into the metrics.  However, this eliminates any basis for comparisons and still preserves all the negative aspects of scoring systems, such as susceptibility to gaming and danger of trickle-down to evaluation on the individual level.  I think many of us agree that we would like our faculty to think about producing serious scholarly work, not how to achieve points on a complex score scheme.

Within Psychology, we would therefore like to try an alternative procedure, namely an annual, State of the Department report that will be made available at the end of every academic year.

Authored by the department head (and with help from the executive committee and committee chairs), the report will present a concise summary of past-year activity with regard to all relevant quality dimensions (e.g., research, undergraduate and graduate education, diversity, outreach, contribution to university service, etc.).  Importantly, the account would marry no-thrills, basic quantitative metrics with contextualizing narrative.  For example, the section on research may present the number of peer-reviewed publications or acquired grants during the preceding year, it may compare these number to previous years, or—as far as available–to numbers in peer institutions.  It can also highlight particularly outstanding contributions as well as areas that need further development.

Currently, we are thinking of a 3-part structure: (I) A very short executive summary (1 page). (II) A somewhat longer, but still concise narrative, potentially including tables or figures for metrics, (III) An appendix that lists all department products (e.g., individual articles, books, grants, etc.), similar to a departmental “CV” the covers the previous year.


––When absolutely necessary, the administration can make use of the simple quantitative metrics.

––However, the accompanying narrative provides evaluative context without requiring complex, department-specific scoring systems.  This preserves an element of expert judgment (after all, the cornerstone of evaluation in academia) and it reduces the risk of decision errors from taking numbers at face value.

––One stated goal behind the metrics exercise is to provide a basis for communicating about a department’s standing with external stakeholders (e.g., board members, potential donors).  Yet, to many of us it is not obvious how this would be helped through department–specific grading systems.  Instead, we believe that the numbers-plus-narrative account provides an obvious starting point for communicating about a department’s strengths and weaknesses.

––Arguably, for departments to engage in such an annual self-evaluation process is a good idea no matter what.  We intend to do this irrespectively of the outcome of the metrics discussion and I have heard rumors that some departments on campus are doing this already.  The administration could piggy-back on to such efforts and provide a standard reporting format to facilitate comparisons across departments.


––More work for heads (I am done in 2019).

So sensible it must be dead in the water. But if you haven’t given up hope in UO yet, show up at Provost Banavar’s Town Hall this Friday at 11:

Metrics and the evaluation of excellence will be at the center of a town hall-style discussion with Jayanth Banavar, provost and senior vice president, from 11 a.m. to noon in Room 156, Straub Hall on Friday, March 16.

The session was announced in a recent memo from the provost, who calls the event a “two-way discussion on the purpose, value, and use of metrics as well as other topics, including the new academic allocation system, the Institutional Hiring Plan, and whatever else is on your mind.”

“I know that there are a lot of questions about what this means, and I have heard concerns that the metrics will be used inappropriately for things such as ‘ranking’ faculty members or departments,” Banavar wrote. “I have also heard rumors that we will be using metrics to establish some sort of threshold at which faculty members could be ‘cut’ if they do not meet that threshold. I want to help allay some concerns and answer some questions. As a former dean and faculty member myself, I understand how questions and even some anxiety can arise when metrics are introduced into a conversation.”

Facutly members who are unable to attend are encouraged to share thoughts, concerns or ideas with the Office of the Provost at

“As we continue our work on the development of these metrics, we welcome your advice and input,” the memo reads. “The goal is to have a mechanism for the transparent allocation of resources to maximally enhance the excellence of our university.”

I do wonder who writes this nonsense.

Faculty Club to host President Schill, tonight at 5PM

Dear Colleagues,

The Faculty Club will be meeting this week, during the usual hours (Wednesdays and Thursdays 5:00-8:00 pm).  We’ll close during Exam Week and Spring Break, and then open again in Week One of the Spring Term.

The Senate-sponsored “Talk to Your Dean Night” series continues this week with a double-header and a presidential appearance.  Yes, that’s right.  Wednesday we’ll have Dean Juan-Carlos Molleda of the School of Journalism as well as Dean Christoph Lindner from the College of Design.  Both deans will be available to chat informally about whatever’s on your mind.  Rumors that the two will settle, in an arm-wrestling match, the age-old question of which school is more “awesome,” are likely false.   Lindner will, however, be offering the Six-o-Clock Toast.

Thursday Michael Schill will be on hand, taking the “Talk to Your Dean Night” series to a presidential level.  With his decidedly non-Caesarian tendencies, our president has little reason to “beware the Ides of March.”  We will, however, be marking the anniversary of Caesar’s death with a Six-o-Clock Toast from Mary Jaeger, Professor of Classics and avowed partisan of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

Hope to see you either night, or both nights.

Yours, James Harper
Chair of the Faculty Club Board

College as a country club

University of Michigan and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
University of Michigan,
University of Michigan and NBER
This paper investigates whether demand-side market pressure explains colleges’ decisions to provide consumption amenities to their students. Using a discrete choice model of college demand, we find that most students appear to value consumption amenities, such as operating spending on student activities, sports, and dormitories, while the taste for academic quality is confined to high-achieving students. Heterogeneity in student preferences creates variation in demand pressure across institutions, which we estimate can account for 11% of the total variation in the ratio of amenity to academic spending across 4-year colleges in the United States.

Union responds to Provost’s letter to Architecture faculty

I don’t know who wrote the Provost’s letter below, but it doesn’t strike me as Banavar’s style. In any case the faculty union has now sent the architecture faculty a thoughtful response:

Dear Department of Architecture and Interior Architecture Faculty,

On Friday, Provost Banavar sent the faculty of the Department of Architecture a letter concerning the recent unrest in the unit. In that letter he emphasizes that the University is a workplace that does not permit bullying or retaliation. We agree with that position. The Provost’s letter, however, goes well beyond reminding faculty of their duties not to intimidate or bully and cites the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as the basis for his reasoning. Consequently, we felt compelled to respond to the letter and clarify the meaning of the CBA.

First, we share the Provost’s concern that faculty in the Department of Architecture fear retaliation and work in a hostile atmosphere where they experience bullying. Our CBA contains strong language protecting faculty from working in an environment that is hostile, abusive, or intimidating. Heather Quarles, the chair of our Grievance Committee, has worked with many faculty across the university to address hostile workplaces. Any faculty member who would like to discuss a hostile workplace should feel free to reach out to Heather at

If department or committee meetings are taking place in the Department of Architecture that exclude faculty members for discriminatory reasons, this must be addressed immediately. It is never acceptable to exclude faculty from departmental activities on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, familial status, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or membership or non-membership in or activity on behalf of or in opposition to the union. Discriminatory actions are forbidden in state law, university policy, and the CBA.

Unfortunately, the Provost goes well beyond discussing discriminatory practices in his letter, telling faculty that “conversations” about the future of the department that do not include all faculty must end. The CBA, despite the Provost’s citations, does not prevent faculty from meeting to discuss the future of the department – whether or not all faculty are invited to participate in those discussions. 

Under the CBA and state law, faculty have the right to organize to discuss their wages and working conditions, including departmental and college governance, free of interference from the employer. The Provost has no right, under either the CBA or state law, to forbid faculty to have conversations about the future of the department. In fact, it is a fundamental right of the faculty to gather together with their like-minded colleagues to discuss how they might resist, protest, undo, and improve the actions of the administration.

Additionally, the Provost has no right, through the CBA or otherwise, to forbid faculty to meet with external advisory groups. As he said, such arrangements may in some cases be counterproductive and harmful, but there can be no blanket prohibition on the right of faculty to work with external advisory groups. The American Associate of University Professors (AAUP) has worked with many faculty at many colleges and universities to organize protests against violations of academic freedom rights. In many of these cases, the administration believed the actions of their faculty in working with the AAUP might be detrimental to the institution, but they had no right to end these conversations or force the faculty to include college administrators in those discussions.

Finally, we are saddened that the Provost did not use the occasion of writing to the Architecture faculty to acknowledge that there are many difficult issues that the department is trying to grapple with. Many faculty clearly feel that the shared governance principles and practices in the department and college do not work. If the frustrations of these faculty have created an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation, this must be rectified, but they cannot be resolved through vague and potentially intimidating demands from the Provost. We believe the solutions to these problems must include more conversations, not fewer.

Any faculty member who wants to discuss the rights of faculty under the CBA, the future of the Department of Architecture, and/or a hostile workplace is free to contact the leaders or staff of United Academics. You can reach us by responding to this email, calling the union office, or contacting any of the officers of the union. 541-636-4714 or


The Executive Council of United Academics of the University of Oregon

3/12/2018: Provost: Architecture faculty cannot secede from College of Design

Riverfront astroturf is not for PE classes or club sports. Is it part of the UO Foundation’s secret Tracktown 2021 plans?

UO wants the Eugene planning commission to give it the right to put 4 astro-turf playing fields with lights just south of the Willamette river. They claim this is for intramural Rugby and PE and Rec classes.

I don’t buy it. I don’t have the Rugby participation data, but it’s not New Zealand. For Fall 2017 UO had a total of 7 sections of PE classes that need playing fields such as flag football, ultimate, and soccer with a total of 166 students. (In comparison there were 27 sections of Yoga type classes). These are 1 credit sections that meet for 2 hours a week. That’s a grand total of 14 hours a week on the playing fields.

These classes are not exactly surging in popularity among UO students. In Fall 2012 there were 9 sections. And while PE and Rec already have 2 lit astroturf fields by the Rec Center, they have no sections scheduled at night.

So what is this really about? I’m guessing it’s part of the UO Foundation’s top secret planning for the 2021 Track & Field Championships.

Where has Oregon spent the $ it saved by cutting higher ed?

On all kinds of scams. Hillary Borrud and Gordon Friedman (former Emerald reporter) have the latest one in the Oregonian:

When state and federal officials approved $8 million in taxpayer financing for a Southern Oregon sawmill project, they did so on the premise the investment would bring back jobs. But officials greenlighted the project despite warning signs the plan to retool the mothballed mill was likely doomed to fail.

Sure enough, even with the expensive taxpayer-provided upgrades, the reopened Rough & Ready mill operated for less than 20 months before shutting down for good. Its equipment has been auctioned off, the land sold and the promised jobs only briefly delivered.

The failed project was overseen by Portland environmental nonprofit Ecotrust.

… Ecotrust officials are accustomed to rubbing shoulders with influential people in Oregon. The city of Portland rented space in its headquarters building. In 2014, Kitzhaber urged that the group be awarded the tax credits — and even tossed in a $1 million largely forgivable loan from a pot of taxpayer money under his control.

The former governor, who is working to regain career credibility after an influence peddling scandal led him to resign, is now getting help from Ecotrust. It has inked a four-month contract with him to work on an opaque economic development and natural resource management project called Salmon Nation. Ecotrust would say only that the group is paying him “his standard hourly consulting fee.”

… To qualify for the maximum amount of state tax credits, Ecotrust needed to show that upgrading the Rough & Ready sawmill so it could reopen would cost at least $8 million. Ecotrust’s application to Business Oregon showed half that cost would be to acquire land and construct a building — even though the same three-page application showed the mill was already situated on a 300-acre site with an existing 35,000-square-foot sawmill.

Acquiring land and buildings from Rough & Ready’s owners only to give them to an entity 99 percent owned by those same people is not an upgrade eligible for a state taxpayer subsidy, Nia Ray, director of Oregon’s Department of Revenue, informed Ecotrust. Tax credits should never have been awarded for that purpose, she said.

Yet Business Oregon signed off on the subsidies. Buehler, the spokesman, said Ecotrust’s application didn’t provide enough detail for officials to spot that problem.


The UO Senate is not a sham operation like other Senates

In the Chronicle. From surveys and interviews of faculty on job satisfaction and other things, conducted by the “Collaborative for Academic Careers in Higher Education at Harvard University.”

Some professors don’t put much stock in faculty governance. The ability to effect change on a campus appeared to positively influence job satisfaction, the study found. But professors at research institutions didn’t seem to think faculty governance was as effective as did their peers at other types of institutions, unless they were in a position of leadership, such as a department chair or a dean.

“University senate and that sort of thing are just sort of sham operations,” one professor said. “They don’t do anything productive as far as changing real policies or importance.”

Of course they can’t be talking about the UO Senate, because our administration decided for us, without Senate input, that the UO faculty would not participate in the Collaboratives survey.

Why is the Ross fund unlike any other Foundation fund?

Short version:

The UO administration has been telling people that the Ross Fund modification was a routine part of the UO and UO Foundation’s normal processes. I don’t think that’s true. It was exceptional on many dimensions, as I document below. First, at ~$2.5M, it was by far the largest fund modified since 2009, as far back as my records go. I think the next highest was $175K (although numbers are not there for all modifications). Second, it was the only modification that was opposed by anyone. Third, it was one of only three modifications I could find that explicitly took control of spending from the faculty and gave it to a Dean. Fourth, it was the most significant change from the donor’s original intent of any of the modifications since 2009.

Most of these modifications consisted of converting “old and small” Foundation controlled endowments (more than 2o years and less than $25K) and converting them to immediately expendable cash – with no or small changes to the purpose of the gift.

In addition, it now seems clear that the AH&H faculty never voted in support of the language in the fund modification. They did vote to approve broadening the scope of the spending to include support for PhD students. However the fund agreement modification proposed by the UO Foundation, supported by GC Kevin Reed, and adopted by the court went far beyond that:

Where annual distributions from the fund are in excess of reasonable, practicable, and/or prudent use for the aforementioned purpose, excess distributions may be used to provide for broader research endeavors of the Department of Art History. Such expenditures may include Ph.D. fellowship support, faculty research stipends, research related travel, or other similar types of research related expenditures. Appropriate amounts and usages are at the discretion of the Dean. In accordance with the original intent of the fund, where funds are utilized in this manner, they will be supplemental to expenditures made from the regular budget and not in lieu thereof.

None of the modifications considered and voted on by the faculty considered anything like this language.

Caveat: As you will see there are a lot of pages of legalese here. I may have missed a few things.

Previous posts on this with links to the Court and Oregon DOJ Charitable Activities documents are at:



The department minutes and motions are at



Long version:

After learning about the Ross Fund modifications from a CoD professor, I asked the Oregon DOJ for copies of their records on all endowment fund modifications submitted by the UO Foundation since 2009. I got back about 1,000 pages of docs (no charge, because of the obvious public interest):

Document I – covers modifications from ~2013-present:

Document II: – covers modifications from ~2009-2012:

Since 2009 the Foundation has requested permission to modify about 62 funds. 35 of these were done under the UMPFI’s “old and small” rule, which allows an endowment to be converted into immediately  expendable funds if it’s older than 20 years and smaller than $25K. The money has to be spent for substantially the same purpose as specified in the original gift.  The typical situation involves a donation of $10K or so back in 1980 or so, to endow a scholarship for undergraduates in a specific department. The UO Foundation writes to the Oregon DOJ Office of Charitable Activities, explains the fund is old and small (and therefore relatively expensive to administer and spend) and the DOJ responds with a letter saying they can end the endowment and spend the money on things related to the intent of the giver. This is a little sad, in that the donors clearly thought they were endowing a permanent memorial to a loved one or themselves, but too bad – the law clearly allows the Foundation to break these contracts in the interest of efficiency, although it doesn’t require that they do so.

I found two or three funds where the Foundation asked for a modification because the bequest included restrictions that are now illegal – e.g.:

I am enclosing for your review a proposed Agreement Modifying Institutional
Fund in the Antoinette S. Stanton Memorial Scholarship Fund. The Fund was
established with $5,000 in 1969. The donor required that preference be given to unmarried students, which is no longer possible under current law. Additionally, the Fund was for the benefit of students of home economics. That department no longer exists at the University. Therefore, the Foundation proposes to modify the Fund- to provide scholarship support for undergraduates majoring in family and human services with consideration of academic merit and financial need. 

Seems like a good idea, though I would have argued the home economics money should have gone to the economics department, since the Greek root of economics means “household management”.

There were also nineteen fund modifications that involved the consent of the donors or heirs/trustees. Many of these were gifts in the hundreds of thousands range. My favorite is the “Rock’n J Chair in History Endowment Fund”. The donors originally named it after their ranch, but later thought better of it and renamed it and broadened the scope to:

Whereas the parties entered into a prior Agreement in December 2004; and Whereas the scope of the chair was too narrowly defined to be effectively used by the department; Therefore it is the parties’ intent and agreement that the Foundation shall modify the purpose to become as follows: The purpose of the Fund is to support an endowed chair in the Department of History to focus on the history of the U.S. American West.

Here’s the full list, categorized as Unopposed, Illegal, and Old & Small. No promises that I haven’t missed something. (Notation: II p141 means document II, page 141.)


Thomas C. Stewart Business Professorship. 2010 II p141. 

The parties have agreed to modify the purpose of the fund to more strategically award faculty excellence within the Lundquist College of Business. Awards will be made on an annual basis with a set stipend and potential additional award for professional development costs. Additionally, the name of the fund will be change to the Thomas C. Stewart Distinguished Faculty Fund, See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Dynamic Measurement Group Research Award for Literacy Study. 2010 II p162. 

The original purpose was to support research by doctoral
students in early literacy and related areas. Sufficient funds are now available so that the parties wish to broaden the purpose to support other graduate students in addition to doctoral students when no or limited doctoral dissertation projects qualify for the award. All original donors have signed the Modification Agreement

Division of Bernard Charitable Remainder Trust. 2010 II p175.

Max Risinger Memorial Fund. 2010 II p216. 

Modification of Purpose. Whereas the parties entered into a prior Agreement in 1976; and Whereas the fund current generates $1,000 per year, so limiting the annual award to $200 is wasteful;
Therefore it is the parties’ intent and agreement that the Foundation shall modify the purpose to become as follows:
• The scholarship[s] may be used for all standard educational expenses including tuition, fees, books, miscellaneous supplies, room and board.
• The purpose of this fund is to grant scholarship[s] to upper- division or graduate students enrolled at the University of Oregon in choral music education who show promise of outstanding success in the field.
• The recipient of the award is to be selected by a committee of the music education faculty, including the Dean of the School of Music, on the basis of observed talent and performance in music education.
• If for any reason the award is not made for a given academic year, then it shall be added to the endowment principal.

John A. and Patricia L. Gertson Scholarship Fund. 2010. II p 233.

The original language of the endowment fund agreement provides that the scholarship shall be awarded “to an undergraduate student at the Lundquist College of Business (“LCB”) whose grade point average is not high enough to qualify for scholarships based on academic achievement. The student must not have been awarded other privately funded scholarships for the same academic period.” This language is overly restrictive and difficult to administer.

Harold E. Lannom and Adrienne D. Lannom Charitable Remainder Unitrust. 2011 II p251. 

The original purpose of the fund was to benefit the Bach Festival here in
Eugene. However, while the Bach Festival remains a program of the University, the Settlors believe the Festival has come to emphasize performance rather than education, conducts many of its event off campus, and in general has become more independent from the School of Music (although it is still a program of the School of Music). For these and other reasons, the Settlors no longer feel that the charitable purpose provided for one-half the remainder interest in the CRUT will be served as originally intended, and the Settlors have requested a change, to which the School of Music has agreed. The new purpose of the one-half remainder gift to the University of Oregon Foundation would be to support the University of Oregon’s Museum of Natural and Cultural History, The specific fund that would receive the remainder interest is the Museum of Natural History Director’s Endowed Fund. This Fund supports educational and scholarly endeavors at the Museum and would be a valuable asset in recruitment and retention of Museum directors.

Frank X. Wegmann Scholarship for Chinese Studies. 2011. II p 290. 

The original purpose was to provide study-abroad scholarships for junior Chinese language majors. Now the parties wish to remove the restriction requiring the student to have completed sophomore year, and to provide for a preference rather than a requirement that the student be a Chinese major.

Tzedek Lectureship Endowment Fund Modification. 2011. II p294. 

The Tzedek Lectureship brings distinguished thinkers and teachers in the study of moral, ethical and righteous behavior to Eugene and Portland for lectures and other formal and informal gatherings with students, faculty, and others. The endowment fund agreement called for the Tzedek Lecturer to spend approximately a week engaged in these activities, However, over time this has become impractical, and the Foundation proposes to modify the agreement to provide for a schedule of one to three days. The lectures would continue to be published. David B. Stern and Nancy E. Guitteau, the donors, consent to the modification and have signed the Agreement.

Kritikos Professorship Endowment Fund Modification. 2011. II p295. 

The Kritikos Professorship brings distinguished scholars, critics and leaders to Eugene and Portland for lectures and other formal and informal gatherings with students, faculty, and others. The endowment fund agreement called for the Kritikos Professor to spend approximately a week to ten days engaged
in these activities. However, over time this has become impractical, and the Foundation proposes to modify the agreement to provide for a schedule of one to three days. The lectures would continue to be published. David B. Stern, the donor, consents to the modification and has signed the Agreement. 

Pat Lynch Charitable Remainder Unitrust (LCB) 2011. II p428. 1996

The first $150,000 received shall be segregated and set aside to perpetually endow a scholarship for the women’s golf program and shall be know as the Pat Lynch Endowed Scholarship for Women’s Golf. 2. Assets received in excess of the initial $150,000 shall be used to create a separate endowment for the benefit of the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business. Income from said endowment shall be used at the discretion of the Dean of the College. This endowment shall be known as the Pat Lynch Endowed Fund for Business.

Dr. John Miller Memorial Scholarship Endowment Fund. 2012 II p459.

The original Fund Agreement contemplated support for scholarships for students in the University of Oregon (“UO”) wrestling program. Since the wrestling program has been disbanded, the goal is to expand the use to also include UO students in the baseball program. This allows for the possible future return of wrestling to UO, with scholarships once again available to those students.

Donald C. Walker and Norman J. Wiener Research Endowment Fund Agreement. 2012 II p465.

There were three original purposes of the Fund, only one of which is at issue in this modification. Specifically, the original gift instrument mandated that the student research scholarships be awarded to graduates from two specific Portland schools only. This restriction has meant that the scholarship cannot always be awarded. Now the parties wish to broaden the purpose under the student research scholarship section to maintain a preference for graduates of Roosevelt or Jefferson High Schools in Portland, but allow the scholarship to be awarded in the event no Roosevelt or Jefferson graduate applies.

Dennis H. and Christine N. Hill Charitable Remainder Unitrust. (Biology) I p1.

Janice E. Rianda Charitable Remainder Unitrust modification. I p356. We understand that you have requested a modification to the charitable purpose
of the David N. and Janice E. Rianda Charitable Remainder Unitrust (the “CRUT”). Modification, in coordination with the more recent Gift Agreement, is intended to convert the CRUT’s purpose from support of a visiting journalism professional to scholarship support for certain journalism majors, as described in the Gift Agreement, and to support the Janice E. Rianda award.
Oregon law requires this modification of a charitable trust to be approved by the Lane County Circuit Court. Therefore, we have filed on behalf of the University of Oregon Foundation the enclosed Petition for Modification of Charitable Remainder Unitrust.

Robert W. and Bernice Ingalls Staton Scholarship Endowment Fund and the Staton Family Quasi Endowment Fund (rename). II p6. 

Rock’n J Chair in History Endowment Fund. II 38. 

Modification of Purpose. Whereas the parties entered into a prior Agreement in December 2004; and Whereas the scope of the chair was too narrowly defined to be effectively used by the department; Therefore it is the parties’ intent and agreement that the Foundation shall modify the purpose to become as follows:
The purpose of the Fund is to support an endowed chair in the Department of History to focus on the history of the U.S. American West.

Oliver and Robin Collins Presidential Scholarship Endowment Fund. II p44. 

Scholarships shall be provided for athletes who qualify’ as Presidential
Scholars based on academic merit, extra-curricular activity, community
leadership and a written essay:k The University Scholarship Selection
Committee,’ comprised of faculty and students, will award the scholarships
each year with oversight from the Student Financial Aid Office based on,
recommendations .from the Athletic Department.  

Modified: Student-athletes with a high school GPA of at least 3.50, who have participated for at least one year in a high-school extracurricular activity other than athletics and who maintain a minimum GPA of 3.00 while enrolled at the University of Oregon. The student-athletes should be from Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington. If there are no student-athlete candidates from the states mentioned above, then consideration should be given to student-athletes from other states who meet the GPA and extracurricular requirements.

Charles A. and Jackie Swenson Endowment Fund Modification. II p66. 

The parties now wish to expand eligibility for the scholarship and provide that students from Singapore will be given preference, followed by students from Hong Kong, followed by students from any other ASEAN country. We have the consent of donor Richard Scow and do not plan to seek court approval for this modification. 

Stine Graduate Teaching Fellowship Fund Modification. 2009, II p73.

Libraries. Expand to undergrads. 

Tee A. Corinne Institutional Fund Ip5- & IP164

$175K. Modified to “To benefit the Special Collections and University Archives at the University of Oregon Libraries, for the purpose of acquiring, processing, preserving and making available the papers and records of feminists and/or lesbians, including the Lesbian Community of Southern Oregon.”

Dow-Kerns Oriental Art Institutional Fund.  I p309. 

Therefore it is the Parties’ intent and agreement that the Foundation shall modify the fund: To be fully expendable, not endowed; and for the purpose to become as follows: To support the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, with preference for supporting Asian art.

G. S. Douglas Endowed Scholarship. I p398. 

The original Fund Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, contemplated use for a women’s soccer scholarship. The spendable cash available as of June 30, 2017 is $368.11. The Fund’s endowment as of June 30, 2017 is $18,973.20. The endowment restriction has caused the fund purpose language to become wasteful. The Trustee will remove the endowment restriction and the fund shall be a currently spendable, not endowed fund. The original purpose of the fund may be best achieved by allowing for full spending of the balance of the monies.

The Robert J. Koch Endowed Fund Agreement. I p408. 

The original Fund Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, contemplated use to foster and promote the education and development of the skills of students and the professional development of faculty members in the School of Architecture and allied Arts by establishing an endowed fund which provides unrestricted support to the Dean of the school for those needs he or she deems of highest priority. The spendable cash available as of June 30, 2017 is $1,083.44. The Fund’s endowment as of June 30, 2017 is $19,974.65. The endowment restriction has caused the fund purpose language to become wasteful. The Trustee will remove the endowment restriction and the fund shall be a currently spendable, not endowed fund. The original purpose of the fund may be best achieved by allowing for full spending of the balance of the monies. (Gift language allows Dean to do this any way.)


Miriam McFall Starlin Poetry Fund.

2010 II p 121. 3. Historical Background of Fund. In 1995, Miriam M. Starlin and Glenn Starlin established the Miriam McFall Starlin Poetry Prize with the University of Oregon Foundation. The terms of the Agreement required the prize to be awarded to female University of Oregon • graduate students in creative writing, with a concentration in poetry. See Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein. 4. Reason for Modification. The University of Oregon wishes to remove the gender-based restriction on candidate selection, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Donor Miriam M. Starlin consents to this modification. In addition, Ms. Starlin requests that the award be renamed The Miriam McFall Starlin Poetry Award. Donor Glenn Starlin has passed away. 
The Fund will provide an pnual source of income to be used to award the Miriam McFall Starlin Poetry Prii8to graduate students in Creative Writing whose concentration is in poetry. Recipients will be selected by the Director of the Creative Writing Program from among candidates who have shown a significant talent for poetry, and who evidence promise of additional outstanding achievement.

Antoinette S. Stanton Institutional Fund Modification. II p1. 

I am enclosing for your review a proposed Agreement Modifying Institutional
Fund in the Antoinette S. Stanton Memorial Scholarship Fund. The Fund was
established with $5,000 in 1969. The donor required that preference be given to unmarried students, which is no longer possible under current law. Additionally, the Fund was for the benefit of students of home economics. That department no longer exists at the University. Therefore, the Foundation proposes to modify the Fund- to provide scholarship support for undergraduates majoring in family and human services with consideration of academic merit and financial need. 


Annual Program Music School Support Institutional Fund Modification. 2009 II p79. 

Walter R. Moberly Memorial Award Endowment Fund. 2009 II p84. 

FailingBeekman Oration Prize Fund. I:p44.

Created in 1889. $20K. Transferred to Humanities Scholarship Fund.

McCool Memorial Scholarship Fund: Ip56. 1985. 

Dollars ($10,000.00), in memory of Eve H. McCool.” EQ35/26-7580
The spendable cash available as of October 1, 2014 is $0. The Fund’s endowment as of October 1, 2014 is $23,937.83. The Trustee will terminate the Fund and transfer the remaining assets to: “The General University Scholarship Endowment Fund: To be used by the Office of Student Financial Aid for general University of Oregon scholarships.”

Newel H. Cornish Scholarship Award. I p68.

Transferred to “The Koert S. Kelman Fund: An award for a student pursuing a career in sales and marketing. Student to have achieved a GPA of 3.0 or higher and preference shall be made for financial need. Recipient is to be determined by committee within the Lundquist College of Business.” 

Wallace B. Caufield, Jr. Memorial Fund. Ip78.

Class of 1902 Scholarship Fund. Ip87.

John Lee-Rick Bullis Memorial Fund Ip96. Architecture. 

Kathryn S. Riddle Scholarship Fund. Ip105. 

“The beneficiary of each of the three (3) bequests herein mentioned shall hold
the principal thereof in trust by it and the income therefrom shall be used to
establish and provide a scholarship for an outstanding upper-class woman
student in the Women’s Physical Education Department at the mentioned
Universities, each to be known as the Kathryn S. Riddle Scholarship. The
recipient of the annual scholarship shall be a student selected by the Chairman
of the Department of Women’s Physical Education at such University with the
advice of the Department Faculty.” 

Frances P. Courteau Scholarship Fund. Ip117. 1963. 

T. Neil Taylor Scholarship in Editing. Ip127. 1940-1954. Journalism.

Edith Kerns Chambers Scholarship Endowment Fund. Ip137. “A scholarship shall be granted to an undergraduate student or students of high scholastic promise who need financial assistance while attending the University

Class of 1903 Scholarship Fund. I p147.

Van Schaack Music Scholarship Fund. Ip156. 

“for the benefit of blind persons studying music.” In the last twelve years only one student has met these criteria. Therefore, it has been impractical to achieve the donor’s original intent and wasteful to hold the fund for such a narrow purpose, as is. For these reasons, we ask that the Fund be modified as follows: “To support scholarship(s) for music students at the University of Oregon, with a strong preference for those who are blind.”

Bennett Prize Fund. Ip167.

Give and bequeath to William J. Bryan, of Lincoln, Nebraska, the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars in trust, however, to pay to twenty-five colleges or universities to be selected by him, the sum of Four Hundred
Dollars ($400) each. Said sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($400) to be
invested by each college receiving the same and the annual proceeds
used for a prize for the best essay discussing the principles of free

George Rebec Essay Prize in Philosophy Endowment Fund. I p174.

Pennell Memorial Library Fund. I p182.  

In the purchase of inspirational books for said University library, preferably books of biography, as are selected by such librarian and his assistants, the sum of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00).” Also a house with iffy plumbing. 

Leach Library Book Endowment. I p204. 

“Income from endowment to be used for the purchase of art library books.” The Trustee will terminate the Fund and transfer the remaining assets to:
“The Architecture Library Fund: for the benefit of the Architecture and Allied Arts Library at the University of Oregon. Funds may be used to purchase books,
visual materials, supplies, equipment, travel, student wages or stipends,
furnishings and any other purposes for the general operations of the A&AA
Library. Use of funds is determined by the dean or his/her designee, in consultation with A&AA Librarian, A&AA faculty members and department

Flora (Campbell) McDonald and Alexander Campbell Fund. I p215. 

“The bond will be inscribed simply, “The University of Oregon” for we wish to make this gift without any limitations whatsoever. The bond may be used in any way and at any time the officers of the University may desire is best. However, in so far as it may be feasible and reasonable, we would like to see the income applied to the purchase of books and /or journals for the University of Oregon Library. In recent correspondence on this matter I have had with Dean Unthank, he mentioned that it is customary for the library to place in items so purchased, a plate indicating the source. If the library cares to do this in the present instance, I would request “Mrs. Flora (Campbell) MacDonald and Alexander Campbell.”

Marie Flodberg Fund. I p224. 

“I give, devise and bequeath all of my property and estate to the University of Oregon, and suggest to said beneficiary that the moneys and/or other property distributed to it from my estate be used by its Department of Ophthalmology for research on diseases of the eye.

Roland Bradley Scholarship Fund I p235. 

Albert Lee and Amelia De Ferris Fund. I p247. 

Warner Law School Endowment Fund. I p261.

“It is understood with the donors that these bonds, both principal and interest,
shall be held, used and disposed of subject to the special. orders of the Dean of the Law School.

John Watson Vogan Spanish Essay Fund. I p271.

Victor H. Todd Scholarship Fund. I p281. 

The Harry J. Allen Memorial Scholarship Fund. I p389. 

The Mrs. George Higinbotham Endowed Fund. I p417. 

The James G. Manczazk Memorial Endowed Fund I p425. 

The Merit Tuition Scholarship Endowment. I p433.

The Joni Paulsen Memorial Scholarship I p447. 

The Oregon Music Teachers Association Scholarship Fund. I p452. 

The Charles Frederick Goettling, Jr. Scholarship Fund. I p 462. 

The Class of 1938 Library Acquisition Fund. I p472.

The Wesley C. Ballaine Fund. I p481. 

Koyl Endowment. I p491. 

The original Fund Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, contemplated use for an award each year to a student or students taking courses in literature, public speaking and economics. The spendable cash available as of June 30, 2017 is $3.32. The Fund’s endowment as of June 30, 2017 is $19,051.82. The endowment restriction has caused the fund purpose language to become wasteful.

The Shelton Zack Memorial Scholarship Fund. I p507.  

Faculty Club to host CoE Dean Randy Kamphaus, this Wed 5PM

Dear Colleagues,

The Faculty Club will be meeting this week, during the usual hours (Wednesdays and Thursdays 5:00-8:00 pm).

On Wednesday we continue with our Senate-sponsored “Talk to Your Dean Night” series, with Dean Randy Kamphaus of the College of Education making himself available to chat about whatever’s on your mind.  The Six-o-Clock toast should be quite “educational.”

Thursday is Mad Libs Night at the Faculty Club — the Six-o-Clock toast is missing some key nouns, verbs, adverbs, and exclamations.  We will discreetly approach attendees, solicit words from them, and then read the resulting text at six.   Mad Libs will, of course, never be as funny as it was when we were ten, but I know we can count on the academic set to nominate some piquant words!

Hope to see you either night, or both nights.

Yours, James Harper
Chair of the Faculty Club Board