President Schill withdraws his proposal to restrict free speech TPM

It’s nice waking up to an email like this, and being able to tell the very effective TPM task force their work is done. One less weekly meeting! More on the Senate website here:

From: Mike Schill <>
Subject: Time, Place and Manner rules
Date: February 14, 2017 at 5:51:47 AM PST
To: Chris Sinclair <>, William Harbaugh <>

Hi Bill and Chris,

After discussing the matter with you two, Kevin Reed and other senior staff, I have decided to withdraw our proposal for time, place and manner rules. While I still believe that these rules are advisable to protect content neutrality, I am also convinced that we need to do more work in educating the community and building consensus around them. The UO has no shortage of pressing issues, difficult problems and wonderful opportunities for us to work on together now. Therefore, I am putting the time, place and manner proposal on hold for the foreseeable future.



Attorneys Bill Gary and Greg Hartman explain PERS law to legislators

I’m posting this for my own notes, since faculty union bargaining starts in less than 12 months.

Bill Gary is the Harrang, Long, Gary and Rudnick attorney who, along with Sharon Rudnick, represented the State’s side in the Moro case in the Oregon Supreme Court, over Kitzhaber’s attempt to roll back PERS benefits. Gary does a great job explaining just how badly they lost this case: “With respect to benefits that have already been earned, the court has ruled that you can’t touch them.”

Greg Hartman was the attorney for the state employees and unions, who won Moro. Hartman does a great job explaining how the Moro decision means that current employees at state agencies – and UO –  will now be paid lower wages, because of the need to pay the PERS bill for retired workers such as Mike Bellotti.

Of course taxpayers will also take a hit, as will those who depend on state services.

Video here, links to the committee’s agenda and documents here. For more on PERS read the always cantankerous Mr. Fearless, here.


UO is hiring Jayanth Banavar from UMD as Provost. Since it was a closed search, only a subset of faculty met with the finalists. The Senate Pres and VP got 45 minutes with each. This guy was impressive, interesting, genuine, smart, funny, and he has my complete buy-in:

Dear University of Oregon colleagues and students,

It is my great pleasure to announce that distinguished physicist Jayanth R. Banavar will join the University of Oregon as our next provost and senior vice president. The hiring of Jayanth as the UO’s next chief academic officer is the culmination of a nationwide recruitment that started in August.

Jayanth comes to the UO from the University of Maryland, where he has served as dean of the College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences since 2011. He was far and away our first choice out of a talented pool of nationally prominent academic leaders. The search committee, vice presidents, faculty members, and others who met with Jayanth were impressed with his stellar academic credentials, interdisciplinary track record, strategic mindset, creativity, and ability to make tough decisions with a touch of humor and personal warmth. Jayanth will begin his duties here in Eugene in July, and I cannot wait to welcome him to campus.

This is a critical appointment for the UO. The provost is responsible for working with me, the deans, and the faculty to set the academic priorities for campus and for managing the human and capital resources to support those priorities. In the coming years, the provost will lead efforts to continue our recruitment of new faculty members, retain the talented faculty already here, realize our aggressive student success goals, and oversee the implementation of a new academic budget system. The provost is the guardian of our academic excellence, working with faculty and staff members, students, and other stakeholders across campus to ensure that we maintain the highest-possible quality of scholarly activity and educational programs. I am confident that Jayanth has the experience, vision, wisdom, and leadership skills to work collaboratively with constituencies across this campus to deliver on those ambitious expectations. There are numerous people I would like to thank. The first is our current provost, Scott Coltrane, who last June announced his plans to retire this summer. Scott has served as a valuable counselor and trusted resource throughout this process. We are grateful that he will work closely with Jayanth over the coming months to ensure a smooth transition in the Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs.

I also want to thank Geri Richmond, who carved out time from her busy research responsibilities to lead the 17-member provost search committee. The committee, under Geri’s leadership and with the assistance of the search firm Russell Reynolds, did an amazing job of helping me identify, evaluate, and vet an outstanding pool of highly qualified candidates, working on an accelerated timeline with representatives from various stakeholders across campus. I thank each of them for their service and commitment to the UO. I am also grateful to the University Senate leadership and the Faculty Advisory Council for understanding our need to balance a competitive search process with our desire to receive input from appropriate campus constituencies. The culture of trust and partnership we continue to build played a significant role in delivering a successful outcome.

Finally, I want to thank all the members of the UO community for your support through this process and the last 18 months. In that time we have hired three new vice presidents, four deans, and a variety of other campus leaders. In naming Jayanth to the role of provost, we have successfully put in place a foundation of leadership that will guide this campus in our pursuit of excellence and will change the trajectory of our school for decades to come. 

A transition e-mail account has been created for Jayanth at Please join me in welcoming Jayanth and his wife, Suchitra, to the University of Oregon.  

Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law    

NY Times Editors: Resist UO administration’s plan to arrest peaceful protestors

Update: The Daily Emerald’s Emma Henderson reports on student opposition to the restrictions, which the administration has given the Orwellian title of “The Time, Place, Manner and Protection of Speech Policy”.

2/12/2017: The UO administration wants to make peaceful protests a crime. They have proposed a new policy that will restrict the “time, place, and manner” of free speech at UO. Among the many restrictions our administration wants:

4. Use of University Campus for Speech Activities. … The interior spaces of University buildings are, generally, exclusively reserved for University business activities and therefore are not open for Speech Activities unless properly reserved in advance through the Facilities Scheduling Policy. …

And I thought one of the University’s primary business activities was free speech, or as Thomas Jefferson said, “for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Another:

6.4 While the streets and sidewalks of the campus are generally open to Speech Activities by University Entities, the Vice President for Finance and Administration may designate portions of a street and the time of day during which a street is not available for speech activities by any Person or group, in order to meet traffic, emergency access, and public transit needs. Any such restriction shall be content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral.

So they want to be able to ban marches down 13th Street by, say, South Eugene High School students protesting the Trump election. And UO students will need permission to put up protest banners:

9.4 University student organizations and ASUO may place banners or signs only in those locations authorized by University Scheduling and Event Services.

And, for those who disobey:


(1)            Any person violating these rules is subject to:

(a)             Institutional disciplinary proceedings, if a student or employee; and

(b)            An order to leave the immediate premises or property owned or controlled by the University by a person in charge of University property.

(2)            Persons failing to comply with an order by a person in charge to leave or to remain off the immediate premises or property owned or controlled by the University may be subject to citation or arrest for criminal trespass.

That’s right, the UO General Counsel’s office wants to have the right to arrest UO students who engage in peaceful protests such as last spring’s Divest UO sit-in.

Our administration is not alone in proposing these sorts of restrictions, and this Sunday the New York Times editorial page took aim at them all:

While their proponents say the bills and initiatives are needed to protect public safety and ensure civility, these efforts would crush the right of free protest at a time when key American principles and institutions are under attack.

Link here:

Dana Altman’s Duck basketball players file more lawsuit docs

2/12/2017: After a month or so of delays and a special request to exceed the normal 30 page limit, Dana Altman’s players’ lawyers have finally responded to UO’s lawyers’ response to the players’ lawyers response to UO’s response to Judge McShane’s decision to dismiss some but not all of the arguments of the players’ attorneys in response to UO’s request for dismissal. If that’s not clear the docket is here, with links to most everything. Altman’s players want another round of oral arguments, Judge McShane hasn’t decided on that yet. I gave this latest a quick read and didn’t see anything new, or any more racially offensive language from Brandon Austin’s celebrity attorney Alex Spiro:

Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 10.18.34 PM

12/5/2016: UO lawyers post summaries of Dana Altman’s players calls with Jane Doe

UO’s lawyers posted these on the federal court website on Friday, as part of their response to the response from Altman’s basketball players’ lawyers response to the UO lawyer’s response to Judge McShane’s decision to dismiss some but not all of the arguments of the players’ crew of attorneys in response to UO’s written request for dismissal and the oral arguments. If that’s not clear, the docket is here.

What’s not clear is why UO has now made these transcripts public by putting them into the court record. Jane Doe reported the alleged gang rape to the UOPD, who did not report it on their crime log or the Cleary report, but instead turned the investigation over the the Eugene PD. The EPD detective asked Doe to call the alleged rapists and record her conversations with them, apparently in the hope that they would say something incriminating, or not. Summaries of those calls are here, along with the EPD interviews with Jane Doe and Altman’s players. One excerpt:


Perhaps UO’s attorneys think that the police investigation records suggests that the players coordinated their stories, and that these reports therefore somehow weaken their case against UO?

If they did coordinate, I wonder if any Duck athletic department employees helped them. Tom Hart, a former New Hampshire state cop, is the go-to guy for Ducks athletes who get in trouble:

Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 9.20.07 PM

UO’s lawyers have asked for Judge McShane to hear their oral arguments before deciding on their request to dismiss.

UO Foundation’s endowment strategies pay off – but where does money go?

Diane Dietz has the good news here:

The University of Oregon Foundation proved itself among the best in the country for shepherding university endowment cash in 2016 — and far better than Harvard or Princeton.

The overall UO endowment grew 5.5 percent last year compared with an average loss of 2.2 percent for peer endowments, according to the annual survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers and the money manager Commonfund.

About 2.4 percent of the UO’s gains came from investment returns, placing the UO in the top 5 percent of its peers. The rest of the growth came from donations. …

Not bad, considering that the S&P returned about 1.4% for the FY, with dividends reinvested. But we’ll have to wait for the Foundation to get around to releasing its tax return to see their expenses. Their IRS 990 was due Nov 15, but they typically ask for the maximum allowed extension – 6 months.

And the Foundation is not required to release much information about where their money goes. They dropped the athletic breakout from their audited financial statements years ago, and threatened to sue me for defamation when I pointed that out publicly, and released the data I could find:

President Schill proposes $945 per year tuition increase + $150 tech fee

An excerpt from Pres Schill’s letter:

As I have already noted, we will do everything we can to shield our most vulnerable
students from the impact of this proposed tuition increase. The PathwayOregon
program continues to provide full tuition and fees to about 2,000 Pell Grant–eligible
resident students on our campus, including more than a third of our first-year resident
students. [UOM: Thanks in part to the generosity of Trustee Connie Ballmer.]
We have also made significant progress toward achieving the goals set when
we announced the Oregon Commitment in 2015, which provides advising, planning,
and academic resources to help every student at the university graduate in a timely
fashion. To every extent possible, we intend to maintain the integrity of those important

TFAB report here: They are reporting the following cost increases:

Despite that $11M salary increase – a good chunk of which goes to upper administrators – UO faculty pay is getting worse, relative to our comparators:

For 2015-16, UO Assistant profs averaged 94% of AAU public university salaries, Associates 95%, Fulls 87%. That’s down from 95%, 98%, and 89% the year before. So UO is not going to be able to maintain “excellence” without more money.

No differential tuition for B-School this year, and the in-state tuition increases will be bought down if the legislature coughs up more money:

Full text of the letter:

To University of Oregon community members,

Pursuant to university policy, the provost and I have received the recommendations of
the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB), a body containing students,
administrators, and members of the faculty and staff. Among the recommendations is an
increase in tuition of $21 per credit hour—or $945 per year—for in-state undergraduate
students. The TFAB recommends the same increase for out-of-state undergraduates
students of $21 per credit hour, or $945 annually. For the 2017–18 academic year, this
equates to a 10.6 percent increase in undergraduate tuition for in-state students and a 3
percent increase for out-of-state students. The TFAB also recommended various tuition
increases for graduate tuition and a new technology fee of $50 per term.

I regret that I have little choice but to accept the TFAB recommendations on tuition and
fees for next year. Pursuant to university policy, I am posting the TFAB
recommendations together with this memorandum for public comment. After receiving
public input, I will forward my final tuition recommendation to the UO Board of
Trustees for consideration at its next regular meeting on March 2–3.

I wish it were not necessary for us to increase tuition by these significant amounts.
Although the vast majority of our lowest-income students will be spared from this
increase by the PathwayOregon scholarship program, for some students a $945 increase
will make attending the UO difficult or impossible. Yet the state’s fiscal problems leave
us no choice. Oregon’s disinvestment in higher education over more than two decades
has shifted the burden of paying for college from the state to our students and families.
In 2015, the state made some positive moves toward addressing this trend with an
increase in funding, which was greatly appreciated. The governor’s recommended
budget, however, keeping funding flat over the next biennium in the face of rapidly
rising costs, returns us to the previous status quo of disinvestment.

Only four other states in the nation provide less funding per student for higher
education than Oregon. That is simply unacceptable. Public universities in Oregon have
calculated that it would take at least an additional $100 million in state support for
public higher education to preserve core student services and financial aid. If we
received this amount we would voluntarily limit tuition increases to about 5 percent.
Flat funding may not sound like a reduction, but the university is forecasting very large
cost increases over the next couple of years—largely created by salary increases from
collective bargaining agreements and unfunded retirement costs. These increased costs
amount to roughly $25 million.

Even with the substantial tuition increases recommended by the TFAB, the university
will still need to close an $8.8 million recurring gap in our budget for next year. We
have already begun a process, aided by faculty members, administrators, and students,
to identify how we can create new revenue streams and/or cut expenses. Roughly 80
percent of our educational budget pays the salaries of our faculty, staff, and
administrators. Therefore, any efforts to cut the budget will inevitably lead to a loss of
jobs and pain to our community.

As we move forward, we will strive to protect the academic and research programs of
the university. Our goal will be to continue and accelerate the progress we have seen
over the past couple of years in enhancing excellence in teaching and research,
including investments in faculty hiring, research infrastructure, and support for student
access and success programs. Budget challenges will make this harder and may require
difficult choices, but we cannot and will not take our eyes off the pursuit of excellence
in all that we do at the UO.

As I have already noted, we will do everything we can to shield our most vulnerable
students from the impact of this proposed tuition increase. The PathwayOregon
program continues to provide full tuition and fees to about 2,000 Pell Grant–eligible
resident students on our campus, including more than a third of our first-year resident
students. We have also made significant progress toward achieving the goals set when
we announced the Oregon Commitment in 2015, which provides advising, planning,
and academic resources to help every student at the university graduate in a timely
fashion. To every extent possible, we intend to maintain the integrity of those important

It is my hope that we can still avoid raising tuition by more than 10 percent and
reducing our budget through layoffs and attrition. I call on all of our constituents—
students, faculty and staff members, alumni, and friends—to join me in requesting that
the legislature and governor prioritize higher education and stop shifting the cost of
educating our future workforce to our students and their families. Over the next several
months I will be in Salem urging our lawmakers to remember that the future of our state
is being shaped in places like Eugene, Corvallis, and Portland. Please join me in that

If, collectively, we are successful, we can reduce the tuition increase. The TFAB
recommendation estimates that each $20 million increment in increased state funding
for public higher education would allow the UO to reduce the proposed resident
undergraduate tuition increase by roughly 1 percentage point. The full $100 million in
state support for higher education would result in a 5.1 percent recommended tuition increase
at the UO. Increases of state support would also reduce the operating cuts that
would be needed in the coming year. This would significantly help our students, their
families, and our employees.

Ultimately, we likely will not know how state funding for higher education will shake
out until June or July of this year, which is when state lawmakers historically approve
the budget for the next biennium. I will continue to keep the UO campus community
abreast of changes to our budget situation and the potential impact on the UO campus
as information becomes available.

I invite you to comment on the tuition proposal prior to my making a final
recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees. Please provide input using this form by
5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 17, 2017.

Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

As universities try to restrict free-speech, state legislators try to protect it

The UO administration finally gave the UO Senate a copy of their proposal to restrict free speech, here, and the Senate is now working on a less restrictive policy.  The Chronicle has a new report on the state legislation here (gated if off campus). An excerpt:

… So far, all of the lawmakers who have introduced such legislation have been Republicans. President Trump himself expressed anger this month, when violent protesters shut down an appearance by Mr. Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart editor, at the University of California at Berkeley.

In Virginia, however, Democratic members of that state’s House of Delegates played a substantial part in its passage this month of a bill briefly declaring that no public college there can abridge the freedom of anyone — including students, faculty members, employees, and invited guests — to speak on its campus.

Even before the 2016 presidential election made clear that the nation had become exceedingly polarized, some state legislatures had been moving to protect the speech rights of public-colleges students, mainly by barring such institutions from maintaining limited “free-speech zones” or by adopting new protections for student journalists.

The divisiveness that the election and its aftermath have brought to campuses, as well as recent uproars on campuses over certain speakers, appear to have heightened awareness of such speakers’ vulnerability to what is widely known as “the heckler’s veto” — protest disruptive enough to keep them from being heard.

The measure that North Carolina’s lieutenant governor has proposed is based heavily on model legislation devised by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank in Arizona, and by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Washington, D.C.

Likewise, the Tennessee bill contains a provision calling for public colleges to punish people who interfere with the free-speech rights of others. The bill also has language providing that students may sue colleges that violate their speech rights for injunctive relief, attorney fees, and court costs.

A measure passed 65 to 25 by North Dakota’s House of Representatives, and now pending before that state’s Senate, takes a different, and somewhat softer, tack. It would require the State Board of Higher Education, which governs the North Dakota University System, to adopt a policy that prohibits public colleges from restricting speech, punishing students for free expression, or shielding students “from constitutionally protected expression merely because it is considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.” …

Athletic Dept to give the academic side $5.8M from new TV contract!

Great news – just as President Gottfredson promised the Senate he’d try and do! This will certainly help reduce the expected tuition increases!

Just kidding, this news is from the University of Wisconsin athletic department. And of course there’s some funny accounting anyway – story here. But still, it’s progress. How did it happen? Well, unlike the Ducks, Bucky actually has *faculty* on the committee that determines the athletic department budget:


UO reconsidering draconian liability waiver for T&F officials

2/7/2017 update:

From: “Oregon Track & Field” <>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 21:45:58 -0800
Subject: Waiver Update
To: Oregon Ducks

Dear Oregon Track & Field Officials,

Thank you for your emails and valuable feedback today regarding the
waiver that was part of the online officials database. Because of
your input, I am working within the University of Oregon to address
the concerns you have shared. I will provide an update as soon as
possible, but please allow me a couple of days to work on this.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. We value your
contributions to our program and appreciate your communication on
this issue.



Interestingly, the waiver form for other UO volunteers at explicitly exempts volunteers from having to waive their right to sue UO if they experience damage or injury “caused by the negligence or intentional acts” of UO:

Please Read Carefully In consideration of being able to volunteer for the University and University providing liability coverage as detailed previously, I, for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release and forever discharge the State of Oregon, Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon, University of Oregon and their respective officers, employees, members, agents, and volunteers (the “Released Parties”) from any and all demands or claims for damage or injury, from any cause of suit or action, known or unknown, that I may have against the Released Parties and from all liability under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260-300, for any and all harm or damage to my health in any manner resulting from or arising out of my volunteer activities that is not caused by the negligence or intentional acts of Released Parties.

I don’t know why they wanted the Track and Field volunteers to give up everything.

2/6/2017: UO wants Track and Field volunteers to sign strict liability waiver & pay lawyers

A longtime volunteer at UO track events forwards the following email, regarding the new UO policy to require their volunteers to sign a liability waiver:

I refuse to sign a waiver of all my legal rights “to be permitted to participate in any way” as an unpaid volunteer in multi-million dollar enterprise that (as we are repeatedly informed) could not function without our participation. As your email states, this is a new requirement that has not previously been demanded from track volunteers. As a lawyer, I recognize and understand what is clearly corporate counsel’s effort to “tie up loose ends” by forcing us to sign such a waiver, an effort that I view as a slap in the face of all of those who literally make this program possible.

I don’t mind standing for hours in sideways rain in April or 95 degree heat in July to support track and field. However, I will not “release, waive, discharge, and covenant not to sue the State of Oregon, the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon, and the University of Oregon (collectively, hereafter called the “University”), their officers, employees, and agents from liability from any and all claims including the negligence of the University, its officers, employees and agents, resulting in personal injury, accidents or illnesses (including death), property loss, and damages arising from, but not limited to, participation” for my unpaid volunteer work.

This waiver ignores and inverts the idea that it is we who are providing the free service for the University rather than the University providing us some benefit for which we are supposed to be thankful and thus give away our legal rights.

I don’t mind giving my “irrevocabl[e] consent to and authorize the University of Oregon to videotape, film and record me” since I’m not particularly photogenic, but if I am injured by some act of negligence of the University, I expect to retain the full range of my legal options which the waiver you demand I sign would eliminate.

I have tried to complete the sign up form without consenting to the waiver, but your “new system” prevents this. I have volunteered with the track program for nine years and had expected to be doing so for many more but if this what you now demand for my free labor, I – with great regret – must inform you that you just lost at least one volunteer, and I suspect many more.

I hope you will reconsider and retract this new policy and act in a manner that respects the volunteers who make the Oregon Track program function.

If you google volunteer liability release site:edu you’ll find that these releases aren’t uncommon. But UO’s language is particularly mean-spirited:

I also agree to INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, AND HOLD the University and its officers, employees, and agents HARMLESS from any and all claims, actions, suits, procedures, costs, expenses, damages and liabilities, including attorney’s fees brought as a result of my involvement in the Activity and to reimburse them for any such expenses incurred.

No need to shout, we get the message. If you volunteer for UO and they are negligent and you get hurt, our General Counsel’s Office will want you to pay UO’s legal expenses.

“Oregon Promise” takes from the poor, sends the rich to community colleges

The technical term is “lose-lose”. Saul Hubbard has an excellent story on the results of Oregon State Senator Mark Haas’s experiment – free community college tuition regardless of how rich you are – in the RG here:

-More grant recipients than the state expected come from well-off and middle class families. That reduces the amount of federal aid they receive, driving up the share of their tuition the state must pony up. Over 30 percent of “Promise” funds are going to students coming, for example, from a household with two kids and a gross income of $110,000 a year or more.

– African-American, Latino, and Native American students are all statistically underrepresented in grant receipt, compared to the respective shares of Oregon’s high school population they make up.

The only ethnic group that’s overrepresented, slightly, in this year’s crop? Non-Hispanic whites.

Oregon’s seven public universities, which saw a slight dip in in-state enrollment this year, are pointing to some of those problems and calling for the state to scrap the “Oregon Promise” next year.

The universities argue that the money would be better sent directly to them and to community colleges to hold down tuition increases, or redirected to the existing Oregon Opportunity Grant program, which provides financial aid exclusively to low-income students at universities and community colleges.

But Sen. Mark Hass, the Tualatin Democrat who led the charge to create the “Oregon Promise” in 2015, is bullish on its future. …

Next year’s story will be on how few of those students are still in school, given community colleges low retention and transfer rates.

Elsevier buys Academic Analytics competitor


10/27/2016: Provost drops $100K subscription to faulty Academic Analytics faculty data

This is great news. The $100K that Provost Coltrane just saved will allow UO to hire a tenure track humanities professor.

Oh wait, sorry. This comes from the Provost of Georgetown University, Robert Groves. Read his full blog post (yes, their provost has real blog, with comments) here:

With the rise of the Internet and digital records of publications, comparisons of quality of universities are increasingly utilizing statistics based on this documentation (e.g., the Times Higher Education university rankings). Many academic fields themselves are comparing the product of scholars by using counts of citations to work (through h-indexes and other statistics). Journals are routinely compared on their impact partially through such citation evidence. Some academic fields have rated their journals into tiers of “quality” based on these numbers. Platforms like Google Scholar and ResearchGate are building repositories of documentation of the work of scholars. …

In short, the quality of AA coverage of the scholarly products of those faculty studied are far from perfect. Even with perfect coverage, the data have differential value across fields that vary in book versus article production and in their cultural supports for citations of others’ work. With inadequate coverage, it seems best for us to seek other ways of comparing Georgetown to other universities. For that reason, we will be dropping our subscription to Academic Analytics.

12/11/2015: Faculty object to use of secret Academic Analytics data in tenure decisions

This is at Rutgers, InsideHigherEd has the report by Colleen Flaherty here. UO has had a contract with AA for several years, at about $100K.

The data available includes reports on individual faculty, such as this, from their website:

Screen Shot 2015-12-10 at 12.47.16 PM

Obviously more information is good, but the administration holds these reports pretty tight to the vest – even the departmental level ones. Maybe our Senate will need to look into how these data are being used.