Note: on 5/26/2009 we got this comment on this post and it sounds pretty knowledgeable. We’ve left the original post up, but take it with a grain of salt.

“This is a very carefully sliced history. A more balanced view with a baseline from a few years ago: We had Moseley (Provost), Davis (VP Acad. Affairs), Anne Leavitt (VP, Student Affairs), and Dan Williams (VP, Administration), plus the other VPs for Development and for Research. They were replaced by Bean, Tomlin, Holmes, and Dyke. Lorraine only had the Student Affairs portfolio for a fairly short time, and Frances was mostly a replacement for Dan Williams, with the addition of some of JTM’s financial responsibilities. this sure looks like a one-for-one replacement, distracting us from the more serious issues of the huge growth in Associate VPs, support staff, and so on.”

Original post:

A little UO history – email us if there are any errors. Until 2006 John Moseley was Provost and Vice President for Finance and Lorraine Davis was Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. In 2006 Lorraine retired and her job was split in two – Russ Tomlin took the Academic Affairs part, and Robin Holmes the Student Affairs part. That same year Moseley retired and his job was also split in two. Jim Bean is now Provost and Frances Dyke is VP for Finance. Now we hear that Provost Bean is going to hire a new VP for Budgeting, with responsibility for all the parts of the job Frances Dyke hasn’t been able to figure out. She will keep some sort of title and her entire $212,000 salary. Meanwhile, incredibly, both Moseley and Davis are still on the UO payroll 1/2 time – Moseley runs UO’s money losing Bend programs from his retirement home on the Deschutes, and Lorraine Davis is now apparently traveling to away games at UO’s expense and proctoring athlete’s exams – if she has any more substantive responsibilities, we haven’t heard of them, and her $197,278 FTE contract has two more years to run. So, in less than 3 years UO’s core central admin has gone from 2 people earning a total of about $350,000 to:

  • $320,000 Jim Bean, Provost
  • $212,000 Frances Dyke, VP for Finance
  • $170,000 new VP for helping VP for Finance Frances Dyke
  • $177,000 Russ Tomlin, VP for Academic Affairs
  • $181,000 Robin Holmes, VP for Student Affairs
  • $124,000 John Moseley, Spec Asst to Provost Bean (that’s the pay for 1/2 time)
  • $99,000 Lorraine Davis, Spec Asst. to Pres and Provost (“)

Totals $1,283,000 before we talk benefits, secretaries, staff, fancy offices, … (We are omitting jobs such as VP’s for Research, Information, etc which have not changed.) And Provost Bean still stands by his claim that UO’s administrative expenses are 38% of our peers? Apparently he’s not the kind of a man who can admit a mistake, but he could redeem himself a bit – and earn his big salaryby insisting that Frances Dyke be replaced, not replicated. According to UO’s Org chart, all these people are Provost Jim Bean’s subordinates. This problem is his problem.

Email from Associate AG David Leith re Grier Investigation

From: “Leith David” David.Leith@doj.state.or.us
Date: May 11, 2009 9:15:32 PDT
To: Professor X
Subject: RE:

Professor X,

I want to provide a clear statement of what we are willing to do.  I hope this will minimize the possibility of misunderstanding or surprise, and that it will give you the information you need to make an informed decision.

This proposal arises from my request at our May 5 meeting that we try to reserve some part of our focus to forward-going objectives, as opposed to retrospective matters.  Responsive to that request, you suggested that we all take a time-out, which I agreed sounded like a good idea.  Our resulting proposal is as follows:

We will not finally conclude our review of the allegations in your complaint against Melinda Grier until after August 1, 2009.  The draft letter that we shared with you would become our interim determination.  You could provide comments on our draft letter up until August 1, 2009, if you remain interested in actively pursuing the issue at that time.  If we receive comments, we would resume our review and complete it in due course.  If we do not receive comments, our interim determination presumptively would become final.

In the meantime, you would cease all public records requests and related petitions (withdrawing any pending requests or petitions), you would cease all complaints (including complaints about UO employees), and you would cease all other communications, including emails, to UO or other state officials.  (The scope of the time-out is in recognition of the fact that your zeal causes issues to become encompassing when they are entertained at all.  The idea is to provide all parties a much-needed opportunity peacefully to reflect.)

In the event that action is taken during the time-out that is inconsistent with these terms, the time-out would end and the constraint against issuance of our final determination before August 1 would be dissolved.  We would notify you that any information you would like to provide responsive to our interim determination would be due by a date certain one week following that notice, and we would issue our final determination in due course after that deadline.

These terms are set out more precisely than I would have preferred, but I believe the clarity is essential in these circumstances.  If you would prefer to forgo the time-out, that also is fine, of course.  I look forward to your decision.  Thanks, — Dave@doj.state.or.us>@doj.state.or.us>@doj.state.or.us>

Athletic Department

Rachel Bachman at the Oregonian does a good job getting the facts out:

5/9/2009: End of Kilkenny Era

Someone should start filing some public records requests on this stuff – starting with the highly unlikely claim that the Athletic Department’s books are balanced. It would be a simple matter to request the budget reports and then see what they are actually including as expenses in those reports.

Another issue is conflicts of interest. What do you think the chances are that the ~200 employees over there are, many with years of experience, moving in and out of marketing jobs and endorsement contracts, are actually reporting all their financial conflicts of interest with UO contractors such as Nike? State law requires such reports.

Frankly we are too busy with the academic side to do much of substance here, but if you have anything particularly interesting, use the comments or email uomatters@gmail.com

UO Foundation

The UO Foundation is a non-profit established to raise and manage money for UO. Non-profit status means it must report some information to the IRS. Here are copies of the UO Foundation’s IRS 990 forms. These explain assets, administrative salaries, and give some hints about how the Foundation spends money. The US Senate Finance committee under Grassley and Baucus has pushed revisions to IRS rules which will require considerably more complete documentation – these take effect next year.

The Foundation always runs out the clock on the allowable IRS extensions – this is a common strategy by non-profits to keep information private as long as possible. They have just released the form for the FY ending June 30, 2008. Data for the FY ending this June will likely not be available until nearly a year later – May 15 2010. Late and incomplete as they may be, these IRS are currently the best available public information on how the foundation spends the money it receives for UO.

UO Foundation IRS 990 forms are below. The 07-08 form is full of interesting info we haven’t yet figured out – like $million plus payments for “UO President’s Office”, whatever that means. Anyone got a clue?


Be the Change

UO’s new President Richard Lariviere takes office 7/1. We hear very good things about him from people we trust. He has a few less than two a months to decide how to fix UO. Don’t let him get all his information from the usual suspects. Email him at rwl@uoregon.edu, and tell him your perspective on what is right and wrong about UO.

Paul Kelly, chair of the OUS Board is another good person by all accounts, who gets too much information from Frohnmayer, Bean, Grier, Dyke and Hubin, and too little from faculty and students. cc him at pkelly@gsblaw.com

Illegally backdated Aff. Act. Plans

posted 5/3/09

Federal regulations require UO to prepare and update it’s Affirmative Action plan every year. At UO, AAEO Director Penny Daugherty never does this and President Frohnmayer then backdates the plans to make it look like we are in compliance.

If you are filing an AA complaint, this is fraud. It will look like UO was in compliance when they were not. A recent Emerald story says

“The plan is suppose to be updated annually; it is a 12-month plan,” said Harold Busch, the former OFCCP Director of Program Operations. “That means (the contractor) needs to have a new plan in effect at that date. You can choose the date … but you must be consistent.”

UO’s 2006 AA Plan is dated “effective Jan 1 2006”. Frohnmayer didn’t sign it until after May 23, 2007, and as these letters show he then backdated it to Jan 1 2006. Incredibly, the current AA plan on the AAEO website is dated Jan 1 2008 – so it’s now 4 months out of date. Apparently Frohnmayer backdated this one, actually signing it in October 2008 or so. Doug Park in the GC’s office won’t tell tell us exactly – that’s right, UO will not tell people when they actually implemented their Affirmative Action Plan!

Complaint to the OFCCP is below:

Dear Mr. Rios:

This is a complaint regarding the failure of my employer, the University of Oregon (UO), to file annual Affirmative Action Plan updates, and their efforts to backdate their AA plan when they finally did update it. I believe UO is required to update these plans annually, and I think that backdating a document of this sort is fraud, or something close to it. I am filing this complaint for myself and for several anonymous minorities, a woman, and a Vietnam veteran, all of whom have asked me to pursue this matter.

I originally started asking the UO Affirmative Action Director, Penny Daugherty about AA plans in May 2006. At the time, UO’s most recent AA Plan was dated January, 2004. Ms Daugherty told me that an update was being prepared. I waited a few months, but nothing happened.

Ms Daugherty then stopped responding to my emails. I then asked UO General Counsel Melinda Grier what was going on, and she also refused to answer. I had a meeting with the University’s Provost, Linda Brady, and the Vice Provost for Diversity, Charles Martinez, on Oct 10, 2006. They assured me the plan would soon be updated, and I said would not pursue the matter meanwhile.

Then in April 2007, I checked and found the plan was still not updated. The AAEO website still listed the plan from January, 2004. I asked around again, but again Ms Daugherty just wouldn’t reply. I wrote a letter to the OFCCP Director in Washington. I emailed UO President Frohnmayer on 5/8/2007, asking what was the holdup, and cced a few newspaper reporters on the email. This got his attention, and he responded a few days later. So I know that as of 5/11/2007, UO had not updated its AA plan from the January 2004 version.

A week or so later I checked the AAEO website. They had now posted a new AA plan. The plan, however, was backdated to say “effective January 1 2006.” It even says this on the page where President Frohnmayer signs it, giving “his personal and professional commitment to equal opportunity”!

As I understand the process, the AA report is prepared by Penny Daugherty and UO’s AAEO office. UO General Counsel Melinda Grier (a specialist in labor and discrimination law) supervises the efforts, and VP for Diversity Charles Martinez consults. None of them have responded to my questions about when the plan was actually complete, much less why they would agree to go along with backdating this official document.

However, I have been told that several discrimination complaints and several lawsuits involving accusations of discrimination are underway against UO. I would think it is important that the people making these complaints know that this backdating has occurred, since it’s my understanding that in the absence of a current AA plan, the burden of proof for some matters involving discrimination claims is with the defendant.

In short, I think the actions of the UO and Frohnmayer, Grier, Martinez, and Daugherty may already have led to, or may about to lead to, real harm.

I very much appreciate your efforts to investigate this situation.


Martinez’s (Diversity VP) 2nd $150K job

Update 5/31/2009:

Greg Bolt has an article in the RG on overcomittment problems at UO. Diversity VP Charles Martinez comes in for special attention. Martinez’s off campus job is at the Oregon Social Learning Center. By running his NIDA grants through OSLC he has been able to do an end-run of the normal overcommitment rules. Here are the contracts showing Martinez’s 3/4 time UO position (pages 1-6) and his 3/4 time OSLC position (pages 7-12). The most recent report, through September 2008, has him working an average of 25 hours a week for OSLC, so he’s billing 19.5 months per year. At one point it was up to 21. His current pay, including a strange “administrative supplement” is now about $150K from UO, plus another $85K from his OSLC grants.

In fairness to Provost Bean he inherited Martinez from Provost Moseley, who had to hire a diversity VP on the quick, after he lost a discrimination lawsuit. So quick that UO didn’t even do an affirmative action compliant search, even a year later, when they converted him from interim to regular. No AA search for the VP for Diversity!?

While Martinez refuses to answer questions, Provost Bean says he’s doing a heckuva job, and it’s fine for him to ignore the usual 1 in 7 day rule on outside work, not run his grants through UO, and have two jobs. As usual with Greg’s articles, you wish he would follow up on his questions, as in: “Really, Provost Bean – you think it is appropriate for one of your VPs to have a 25 hour per week job on the side? Would you offer the same deal to a professor?”

Update from 5/13/2009 Senate meeting:

The meeting also had the Diversity Progress report by VP Charles Martinez. Charles’s speech was straight up bureaucratic double-speak. As has become traditional, Charles brought a large contingent of UO Diversity Committee people with him for protection, announced their presence and had them stand before speaking, and took so long to say nothing that there was no time for questions about that nothingness. But at least this year he took time off from his OSLC job to show up for the meeting, and we appreciate that gesture – so thanks Charles we really appreciate the (literally!) 1137 pages of “Diversity Action Plans” your office has processed. An awesome achievement, on paper.

Notably, Martinez did not mention the UMRP once. We will have more on why later. The other rumor is that his office will be reorganized and Charles will be replaced in fall, because of his second job and because people are beginning to wonder exactly what his office does, besides spend $1 million plus per year. The press release will read something like “Mission Accomplished”. We expect (hope?) that President Lariviere will insist on an open hiring process – it’s a little embarrassing having a Diversity VP who was hired without an Affirmative Action compliant search!

UO Senate motion on financial transparency

5/14/09 Update:

Nathan Tublitz’s UO Senate motion for a bit of financial transparency passed on an unanimous voice vote with a few minor amendments. The argument was over when a Senator said to Frohnmayer: “You are asking us to give up our pay to help out UO. We deserve to know how you are spending our money.” Somehow that didn’t sink in with Frances, who kept on arguing. The motion as passed is here.

Professor Nathan Tublitz has introduced the motion below, calling for UO to follow the OSU lead and provide public access to all accounting information. This simple change would mean the faculty might finally learn how UO spent the extra $12 million in tuition money that came in last year.

Rumor control says Frohnmayer has told the Johnson Hall dwellers that they are to say publicly that they don’t oppose this motion and try and move the Senate to a compromise that would only apply to transactions that occur after President Lariviere takes over. Now why would that be so important? Anyone who’s been at UO for more than a few years knows Frohnmayer’s code of omerta. Perhaps the most vicious recent example was what happened to PPPM Prof. Jean Stockard. But remember, she fought it and won.

UPDATE 5/5/2009: Frances Dyke has now caved on Nathan Tublitz’s motion to require UO to post accounting info on the web. A bit late. Rumor is that Bean is going to hire a new VP for Finance, with responsibility for all the parts of the job Frances hasn’t been able to figure out. She of course will keep her $212,493 salary – hey, it’s not like the state is short of money or anything.

Motion US 08/09-8 Concerning Transparency of University Financial Transactions


SPONSOR: N. Tublitz, Department of Biology

BACKGROUND: The University of Oregon releases general financial information regarding expenditures on an annual basis. However detailed information on specific expenditures is not easily available. For example, it is currently nearly impossible to ascertain how much did the Biology Department spend on frogs for dissections last term or what were the monthly fax charges accrued by the Romance Languages Department last month.

Our colleagues at Oregon State University have developed a user-friendly, on-line budget reporting web site where users can track expenditures, transaction by transaction, by clicking on specific budget lines in an academic department or administrative office, from the President’s office on down (https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/). The OSU system easily tracks individual line items and shows for each how much was budgeted, actual expenditures and available balances. A video demonstration of the OSU system can be viewed at http://oregonstate.edu/~dennisb/videos/nacubo/demo1.html

The OSU on-line budget reporting system has received national exposure and praise (e.g., http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/07/financial). A State of Oregon legislative bill (House Bill 2500; ) has been introduced in the current legislative session to establish a similar type of searchable budget reporting website for all executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government. This motion proposes to establish an on-line budget reporting system at the University of Oregon similar to that already in place at Oregon State University.

MOTION: The University Senate directs the University of Oregon Administration to establish a publicly accessible, on-line budget reporting system at the University of Oregon by 1 September 2009 that will allow users to track current and retroactive individual university expenditures as is currently done at our sister institution Oregon State University on their budget reporting website ( https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/).

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: OSU’s VP for Finance and Administration, Mark McCambridge, states that their cost of developing a web site to interface with their existing budget database (BANNER) cost less than $10,000. Given that OSU has already produced the interface, the cost to the University of Oregon should be significantly less.

Accounting secrets at OSU and UO

At Oregon State there are none.

OSU’s VP for Finance Mark McCambridge has posted all financial information to the web – every single transaction. See https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/ (10/7/2009: now apparently restricted to OSU IP addresses.)

Quoting from the Inside Higher Ed news story:

Since the university already maintained a central database storing transaction information, the process of bringing it into public view took just a few months, with a price tag below $10,000.

“It’s pretty basic, but it is very transparent. Everybody in the institution can see everything that goes on everywhere,” says Mark McCambridge, vice president for finance and administration at Oregon State.

At UO, VP for finance Frances Dyke has been busily instructing her employees to remove what little accounting info is available from her website. (See update here.)

Quoting from the email we were sent by an employee of Ms Dyke’s and written at her instruction:

… we removed the information from our publicly-accessible website and restricted access to personnel with a “demonstrably legitimate need for particular information in order to fulfill their official, professional responsibilities.” Those personnel include those who perform business and budget transactions within the BANNER enterprise accounting system (i.e. campus budget and business officers and core-office personnel.)

You can be sure uomatters.com is making every effort to find out exactly what Ms Dyke is trying to hide (legal disclaimer: if anything) and that we will post it publicly as soon as we do.

UPDATE: Soon after we sent her the URL for this post, Ms Dyke sent the email below to all UO faculty and Staff. She sends this out 6 months after the policy is adopted? How does she expect people to report “financial irregularities” when they can’t get any of the accounting information? Oh, wait, I get it – she’s afraid that…

To: University of Oregon Community

From: Frances L. Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration

Date: May 4, 2009

Subject: Financial Irregularity Reporting Hotline

All of us share responsibility for ensuring that the university conducts its financial transactions in ways that are ethical, honest, and reflect sound fiduciary practices. Because the University of Oregon and the Oregon University System (OUS) take this obligation seriously, a revised Financial Irregularities Policy was adopted in November 2008 by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education. This revised policy encourages employees to report any suspected financial misconduct to the appropriate university office, the OUS Internal Audit Division, or through the Financial Concerns hotline.

The OUS has contracted with EthicsPoint, an independent, third-party vendor, to provide a confidential and anonymous telephone and Internet system for reporting your financial concerns. The OUS Internal Audit Division administers the hotline system and will follow up on reports.

Additional information concerning the hotline and related policies and procedures can be found on the OUS Reporting Financial Concerns webpage (www.ous.edu/financialconcerns). A link to the OUS Financial Irregularity Reporting Hotline has been provided on the UO Business Affairs (http://baowww.uoregon.edu/) and VPFA (http://vpfa.uoregon.edu/) web pages.

Your commitment to integrity and honesty is an important element in maintaining an ethical and secure workplace environment for everyone. Your help in calling attention to unethical or irregular financial practices is greatly appreciated.

Furlough Bottom Line:

The question on the table is should you take the furlough? The senior administrators who are pushing the furlough earn 100% of their peers and recently spent $2.4 million remodeling their own offices. Our president who just got a $150,000 raise, has signed up his retiring VP’s for golden parachute retirements, and is trying to finagle OUS into giving him the same. They haven’t told you the truth about UO’s admin expenses, about Bend losses, etc. So, no, I don’t think you should. It’s pretty clear where your money will end up.

People are concerned about the classified staff they work with. Here’s how to help them out. Get together with other department faculty. Decide how much extra money the department wants to give staff. Divide that total up among the faculty, asking more from those with higher incomes. Then ask for donations. Tell people your goal, their share, and announce that if you do not meet the goal you will give the money back to the donors. This makes every person’s donation “pivotal” and substantially increases the incentive for each faculty to give. These donations are not tax deductible, but at least you will know who is getting the money!

UO does lots of good work, and we all know a lot of those programs are badly underfunded. So, you can also go to UO Foundation website and earmark a donation for those programs you particularly care about.

UO’s Bend programs lose $1 million per year.

Update: 5/14/2009 : Provost Bean’s claims on Bend have morphed from “we are slightly in the black” when asking the faculty for furlough contributions to “we’ve lost millions but we will almost break even next year – if no one notices we are keeping everything possible including Moseley’s salary off the books.” Uh, but he’s the Director, Jim. And what about Leahy and Seitz? You are going to lose your last shreds of credibility over this. Everyone including the CAS Dean knows you haven’t been telling the truth and still aren’t. Sunk costs are sunk – as it don’t use them to justify digging a deeper hole. You are paid enough to do hard things, this one is easy.

At the 4/14 furlough meeting Provost Been told us that UO’s administrative expense ratio was 38% of peers. See his reply to the question at 50:20 in the video. The 38% number is simply a fiction as the post here demonstrates, and the administration apparently just has no idea what the actual ratio is.

So what about the claim Bend makes money? See 32:18 into the video above, where Provost Bean says “A slight profit, very slight, but in the black”. It turns out that this is not true either. I recently was forwarded the email below from a UO administrator to Provost Bean who was not happy that the true cost of Bend had not been presented accurately to the faculty. The gist is that Bend has only 15 graduates per year and the program is losing about $1 million a year. The subtext is the rumor that Frohnmayer is planning on retiring to Bend and administering the UO Program there, or perhaps the entire OSU – Cascades effort. He already owns a $1.05 million dollar home there.

So that’s two false statements so far. What’s left? The claims that Portland is not costing Eugene money and that athletics is self-supporting (48:50). Regarding the first, I’ve already heard from someone that the money for the White Stag sign was not an earmarked donation but will come out of general foundation funds – i.e. funds which could have instead be used to plug the budget gap. Thanks for that, but we really need the documentation, so keep those emails coming to uomatters@gmail.com!

Text of original email:


I have been asked by a number of persons in xxx and elsewhere about the Bend campus. Since part of my job is xxx I thought I should look into the questions myself. Ultimately, this pointed me to the need to have a budget summit, which I will explain below.

The costs on the books for running Bend as you know are around $1 million dollars. This is an underestimate, of course, because many costs of running the campus are borne directly by the Eugene campus. For example, the AV tech at the library who helps beam courses to Bend is not counted towards Bend and it looks like some of the TRP (tenure reduction program) monies for faculty is also not included as costs. The revenue generated by the campus is also hard to figure exactly. However, at its maximum, Bend enrolls 100 students and graduates 15 annually. A significant portion of those students are part-time, nearly all are in-state, and there is very little auxiliary income from these students. Even if they were full time, however, the revenue generated from those students would fall approximately $500,000 short of the known costs of operating the campus. Thus, unless there are significant sources of revenue that are not related to students, the Bend campus is significantly in the red.

However, this really does not express the full cost of the campus, because there are opportunity costs associated with running the campus in the sense that it directs resources away from Eugene that could be used more efficiently on the main campus. For example, the TRP faculty teaching in Bend could teach more students in Eugene than they could in Bend where the average class size in 9. In a time where student demand is exceedingly high and we short of instructional faculty, this cost is substantial. There are many other places you could make this type of opportunity cost argument that make Bend a really poor investment.

Finally, there is a lot about the Bend campus that just does not “feel right”. For example, while no one really wants to put find a point on it, the fact that John Mosley is collecting a six figure salary while being retired in Bend (even if it is legit) does not look right and perceptions are important – particularly in economic hard times when you are asking faculty to give back.

Thus, the resistance you are getting from the numerate persons on campus for Bend, etc. is not misplaced and ultimately I hope you are willing to listen to their very sound advice on Bend and other similar types of expenditures. While I understand that there were other (e.g., political) reasons why having a presence in Bend was important, the recession provides us the opportunity to allocate resources based on sounder economic principles and we should not waste this opportunity.

This exercise points more generally to a need for a deeper and broader consideration of “how we spend our money”. I am on board with the voluntary salary reduction plan this time because I do believe that we did not have sufficient time to respond to the ever changing financial picture. However, in the next biennium, we will have time to plan and we should begin now with a budget summit that includes all the leadership. The essential component to such a summit is the presence of detailed data for all the academic and central units on campus (and off – e.g., Bend and Portland). Before I would agree to take another voluntary cut in pay myself and before I would ever recommend that other faculty participate in such a pay reduction, I think we need to understand what the tradeoffs are and I believe we have an obligation to be more creative with our finances than we were able to be at the end of this biennium. In order for me to understand such tradeoffs and to be able “with a straight face” ask my faculty to pitch in, I am really going to need to understand where the money is going and not take it on faith that, for example, “Bend is breaking even” and “Portland is not costing the main campus anything”.

Thus, I think it is time to start considering some serious tradeoffs between a number of “sacred” elements on campus which include “salaries”. Let me give an example that does not involve Bend – library serials and OIED program grants are both things we value on campus even to the point of being “sacred”. However, we are letting one sacred cow be gored without possibly considering a reallocation of funds from other sacred cows being held harmless. I think we need to be prepared (not afraid) to ask this tough question “Are the current allocations appropriate and consistent with our “Academic Plan”. Careful consideration could involving taking funds from OIED program grants in order to help fund the library. Obviously, there are other places we can go to examine tradeoffs – I picked these two because they are something our campus has shown commitment to and represent choices that people would find hard.

In the end, I think we owe faculty, staff, and students more over the next biennium in terms of a careful consideration of how to address the economic crisis. xxx We are at a critical time where we have the opportunity to examine our priorities and the campus will be willing to listen because of the economic crisis. Thus, we do have an opportunity in this crisis.

I would love to talk more about this idea of a budget summit.

Portland campus expenses and funding sources

UPDATE: As of 5/15/2009, no response from Provost Bean on this:

Sent to Provost Bean 4/19/2009:

Dear Provost Bean:

At the Furlough town hall you asked faculty to email this address if they had questions. This one regards the budget for UO-Portland.

At the meeting you explained that much of the White Stag renovation was paid for by the developer, with money from federal redevelopment funds. You said that UO had made lease specific improvements, but that these had been paid for, so far, using proceeds from the sale of another building. Paraphrasing, you also said that the cost of buying the WS sign, and presumably redoing it, would not come out of general funds, but would be paid by Foundation money. The implication was that these funds therefore were not available to deal with the current crisis.

I am hoping that you can explain two aspects of your statements in a little more detail:

First, how much did UO get from selling other Portland property, how much of that has been allocated to the WS renovation, and what will be the likely net surplus or uncovered cost. What purpose will any surplus by reallocated to, or any shortfall made up from?

Second, that sign again. In your remarks at the meeting I don’t think you said there was an (earmarked donation) specifically for the sign or specifically for WS remodeling. I realize donations to the foundation are exempt from some of the disclosure rules, but I am hoping you can explain how much money has been given to the WS project, with earmarks of what type.

For example, if the money comes from funds earmarked for WS renovations generally, couldn’t that offset other funds which could then be reallocated back to some project with more importance, given our current budget crisis?

This sign has a lot of significance – sort of the point of a sign I guess – and this question comes up time and time again in the debates of UO’s spending priorities. Letters to the editor has focused on this repeatedly. I this it would be good to present a credible evidence based argument that the money that is about to be spent on the WS sign could not legally be redirected to other UO projects, should such an argument exist.

Thanks for your time, and I will post these questions and any reply from you at http://uomatters.com