Ethics charges against Frohnmayer et al dismissed

7/5/2013: Excuse me if I’ve got anything wrong here, it’s been a long strange trip.

Back in 2010 or so Dave Frohnmayer and HLGR filed an ethics complaint on behalf of the county’s general counsel Mark Pilliod against newly elected DA Patrick Flaherty. After a year or so of digging the bar the bar rejected Frohnmayer and Gary’s complaint, finding Flaherty had not violated any bar ethics rules. HLGR picked up about $55K in billable hours from Deschutes county taxpayers anyway.

Around the same time the bar also dismissed the ethics complaint Frohnmayer and Gary had filed against Associate AG Sean Riddell over his role in the DOJ’s investigation of how Kitzhaber’s girlfriend Cylvia Hayes got an energy consulting contract. Frohnmayer and Gary had accused Riddell of lying, bullying, and a variety of other bad things. Nigel Jaquiss of the Willamette Week has the story, which makes everyone involved look like idiots.

Meanwhile Flaherty’s wife Valerie Wright filed a retaliatory ethics complaint against Frohnmayer and Gary. After a year or two the bar finally rejected her last appeal this April. Letter below, final doc dump here, way too much more here.

Bar investigates Rudnick, Gary and Geller for allegations of lack of candor with the tribunal, in an attempt to pad legal fees

7/1/2013 retraction, per ORS 31.120
The original headline on this post, on 6/10/2013, was “Bar investigates Rudnick, Geller and Gary for alleged bill padding.”
On 6/20/2013 I received a retraction demand from Ms Rudnick and Mr. Gary per ORS 31.120, which gives news organizations 2 weeks to retract allegedly false and defamatory statements, before they can be sued for defamation. They wrote:

Every day for the past week, you have published information concerning your defamatory statements on your blogspot under a headline saying “Bar Investigates Rudnick, Gellar[sic] and Gary For Alleged Bill Padding.” [Emphasis added.] This headline is itself false and defamatory. The frivolous complaint that you filed with the Oregon State Bar does not allege “bill padding.” Because this headline is republished on Google and other search engines the republications of your original defamatory claim that we committed perjury and your subsequent deliberate misstatement of the nature of your complaint threatens to cause us and the law firm with which we are associated to suffer irreparable harm to our professional reputations.

Pursuant to ORS 31.120 we hereby demand that you publish a retraction of your false and defamatory statements concerning us as provided in ORS 31.215.

(Full letter below). The ethics complaint to the bar which they refer to stated, in paragraph 2:

In brief, I believe that Mr. Gary, Ms Rudnick, and Mr. Geller may have violated the ethics requirement for “candor with the tribunal”, in an attempt to pad the legal fees HLGR was trying to get from the state of Oregon as the result of a public records case, and that Mr. Geller may have violated rules regarding conflicts of interest stemming from his support for this effort, and may have used his public office to try and delay or prevent release of public records related to it.

Ms Rudnick and Mr. Gary argued that my headline summarization of “alleged bill padding” was not factually accurate, given that my complaint does not accuse them of bill padding per se, but rather of a lack of “candor with the tribunal”, in an attempt to pad their legal fees.

My headline was not factually supported, I retract it, and I regret publishing it.


6/19/2013 takedown update: 

The good news: UO’s attorney’s at HLGR finally admit that UO Matters is news media. This will certainly help me argue for public interest fee-waivers. I’m no law professor, but it also seems that they agree I’m protected under ORS 31.150, Oregon’s law regarding “Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation”, which Randy Geller has argued in the past is not true. The law firm of Davis, Wright and Tremaine has information on this law here.

The bad news: They’ve sent me a “take-down” notice demanding a retraction of this post, particularly the headline. Under Oregon defamation law (ORS 31.120) plaintiffs can’t recover damages against news media unless they first request a retraction. ORS 31.125 explains the rules:

The correction or retraction shall consist of a statement by the publisher substantially to the effect that the defamatory statements previously made are not factually supported and that the publisher regrets the original publication thereof.

I’ll have a response to Ms Rudnick and Mr. Gary’s letter after due consideration. Meanwhile, comments are welcome. Full text here:


6/12/2013 update. I’m not the only person who’s unhappy with what Rudnick and Gary charged the taxpayers. Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum appealed the $550,000 in HLGR billings to the Oregon Court of Appeals back in July 2012 – apparently one of her first official acts – and it’s still in court. More docs soon:


6/10/2013. Nigel Jaquiss has a detailed story in Willamette Week, here, with brief responses from Geller and Gary.

It’s only tangentially related to the bills Rudnick and HLGR have submitted to UO for legal work involving the faculty union, here, which are probably close to $500K by now.

Elevator version?

  • Sharon Rudnick of HLGR got UO lawyer Randy Geller to go along with a plan to try and make taxpayers pay $860K in billings for a public records case related to the Mark Long / Cylvia Hayes energy consulting scandal. 
  • The Oregon Bar Association is now investigating allegations that Rudnick exaggerated HLGR’s rates when the judge was determining how much taxpayers would have to pay the firm, 
  • that Geller was less than completely forthcoming about HLGR’s contracts with UO when he submitted an affidavit in support of the $860K figure, 
  • and that given his conflicts of interest he probably shouldn’t have been the one setting UO’s public records fees and doing the redactions on the HLGR invoices for work billed to UO.

My ethics complaint to the bar is here, the affidavits from Rudnick, Geller, and Bill Gary are here (big file) and the letter from the bar’s Assistant General Counsel Chris Mullman giving them until 6/20/2013 to respond to the initial intake query is here.

More on how UO came to hire Rudnick and HLGR here, more on Mr. Geller’s fury over John Kroger’s investigation of UO’s general counsel’s office and Geller’s August 2012 appointment of Melinda Grier as UO GC Emeritus (sic) here, and more on his past problems following public records law here.

Fact check update: My bar complaint states that the Frohnmayer/Gary bar ethics complaint against DOJ attorney Sean Riddell led to sanctions against him. Actually, the bar dismissed their complaint in Sept. 2012, finding he had made no violations of the bar’s rules of professional conduct. My apologies to Mr. Riddell for the error.

Are Rudnick and HLGR also writing the UO Board legislation?

5/16/2013: Presumably Randy Geller is getting competent legal advice somewhere. Frohnmayer wrote the original version. And if it’s HLGR it would help explain Rudnick’s bargaining table outbursts about keeping shared governance out of the contract. HLGR wrote the Nike tax relief bill that Kitzhaber pushed through in special session, so they’ve got Phil Knight’s trust. The legislative site on the bill is here. I’ll do some more digging, if anyone knows anything please pass it along. Meanwhile the UO Senate will hold a vote of no confidence in Mr. Geller this fall. More on that soon.

Negotiating for Dummies – foreword by Frohnmayer

5/10/2013: I expected venality from Sharon Rudnick and her HLGR team, but like everyone else I’ve talked to I’ve been surprised by the incompetence. Maybe I shouldn’t have been though, given who wrote the foreword to “Negotiating for Dummies”:
Yup, right at the bottom: David Frohnmayer, President of the University of Oregon, and now “Of Counsel” at HLGR. Dave’s no dummy about deals that involve money for himself though. He’s now working for Randy Geller, as a member of Sharon Rudnick’s legal team. He charges UO ~$270 an hour to help screw over the UO faculty:

while also getting paid a $201,028 salary as UO faculty, at 0.5 FTE:

Plus $257,353 PERS. He set up his sweet retirement deal with Pernsteiner at the same time he was trying to persuade the faculty to take 5% furloughs. That’s leadership for you.

Get your copy from Amazon.com, and try and predict what stupid stunt the UO administration’s bargaining team will try next. Now on Kindle too. (Full disclosure: If you buy it through the link below, I get a small commission which I’ll spend on public records about HLGR.)

Kate Brown audits OUS

Update: By popular request I’m adding a link to an audit and other shenanigans of Dave Frohnmayer’s two last provosts, John Moseley and Jim Bean. “Provost’s gone wild”.

The RG editorializes, here. Read the commenters there, they are better informed than the editors about the lack of substance and the Kate Brown politicking in the audit. Speaking of politics and audits, Brown had a hell of a time deciding how to handle the problems with Frohnmayer’s golden parachute deal – they ended up replacing his name with “a former UO president” in the audit report – maybe he threatened to sue them for defamation too? He did have to repay some money though. Then her Audits Division decided to completely bail on doing anything about Pernsteiner taking his $26K “professional expenses” budget as personal salary, while claiming his croissant reimbursements from another account. 4/14/2013.

OUS cuts special deal for Frohnmayer and Rudnick

3/29/2013: OUS’s Oregon Administrative Rule 580 exempts a few things from the normal transparent competitive bidding process for state procurement:

(k) Goods or services related to intercollegiate athletic programs.
(L) Cadavers or cadaveric organs.

(u) Contracts for professional or expert witnesses or consultants to provide services or testimony relating to existing or potential litigation or legal matters in which an Institution is or may become interested.

At its April 5 meeting the board is going to amend that a little, adding all legal services to the list, so that UO can hire firms like Rudnick and Frohnmayer’s HLGR in secret, and without competitive bids:

I’ve written before about Dave Frohnmayer’s success at using his state funded sabbatical to restart his legal career at Harrang, Long, Gary and Rudnick. (Full disclosure: Frohnmayer emailed me back in January, taking umbrage with some of my statements about the golden parachute deal he negotiated with Pernsteiner while simultaneously trying convince the faculty and staff to take furloughs.) HLGR then used Frohnmayer’s UO connections as a hook to get legal work from UO and OUS, while simultaneously promising there was no conflict of interest – thought they neglected to note Frohnmayer was still on the UO payroll. It took a petition to the AG and the help of Phil Barhart’s office to get UO to fork over the proposals. I love that “and at your discretion” part of the HLGR proposal:

Meanwhile Randy Geller – in charge of hiring extra lawyers for UO – wrote a brief for HLGR, supporting their claim in a public records case, arguing the state should have to pay the firm twice the regular rate, or $866K total. Nigel Jaquiss has the story here, my take is here. What’s Frohnmayer’s cut? Not sure, but he bills at $550 an hour, so figure a couple hundred large:


How did Sharon Rudnick end up across the table from the UO Faculty?

12/14/12: And what’s it costing us? Long story. The short version, with my opinion?

The UO administration’s current lead negotiator, Sharon Rudnick, (from Dave Frohnmayer’s firm, HLGR) was originally hired by Interim UO President Bob Berdahl to fight faculty unionization.(That’s my opinion – under state law UO has to officially profess neutrality.)

Rudnick has no particular expertise in higher education. We have spent $X on her firm so far: $Y before certification, and $Z since. (X,Y, and Z are coming soon).

The union is now at the table, putting forward concrete proposals. All the faculty (pro-union, anti-union, or rationally ignorant) should want these proposals to get careful analysis and see responses and counter-proposals developed by people with authority, knowledge of how universities work, and respect for the UO faculty.

The lawyer that Berdahl originally hired to fight union certification (my opinion) is a very poor choice for this new task.

President Gottfredson should fire Rudnick and HLGR and put someone like CAS Dean Scott Coltrane in charge of his bargaining team. Unfortunately, under new OUS policy it is not clear if President Gottfredson can get rid of Rudnick (or Randy Geller) without Chancellor Pernsteiner’s permission.

Long version (in progress).

Please keep in mind that when most of this went down I was opposed to a union for TTF. You can thank Geller, Bean, and Berdahl for changing my view. Also note that obtaining these documents from Randy Geller’s office cost me many hours of time, many fights with the UO administration, and more scotch than I care to remember. So far, UO has hired 3 firms to fight faculty unionization and now negotiate with the faculty union. I’m no history professor, but here’s the history. Comments and corrections welcome.

Fall 2009:

At this point the union drive was a homegrown effort led by Marie Vitulli from Math and a few others, with a little AAUP support. But new President Lariviere was worried enough to sign a secret deal with the Stan Mcknight consulting firm to try and respond to the union’s organizing efforts. $300 an hour with a $25,000 limit. Exactly $1 under the amount that would have required public notice – just like Chip Kelly did for Willie Lyles.

Fall 2011: 

The union organizing drive started heating up, with professional organizers from the AAUP and AFT. Around the same time, Oregon SB 242 (Pernsteiner’s milquetoast response to Lariviere’s New Partnership bill) removed responsibility for UO/OUS legal services from the Oregon DOJ and gave it to OUS. Pernsteiner took this opportunity to centralize authority over legal matters with himself, part of his successful efforts to kneecap Lariviere. The OUS policy is here:

I don’t know exactly how to interpret the policy, but my read is that George Pernsteiner, not Mike Gottfredson now hire and fire UO’s legal advisors.

Around the same time Geller put out an RFP for outside legal help to replace the DOJ. Harrang, Long, Gary and Rudnick responded with this proposal, which emphasized the fact our own Dave Frohnmayer was now working for them (he’d restarted his legal career while on a UO paid “research” sabbatical) and noted their expertise in dealing with unions:


Winter 2012:

Things got hot with the organizing drive. Berdahl was UO’s Interim President and adamantly anti-union, particularly when it came to tenure track faculty. It was clear that there was lots of adjunct and NTTF support for unionization, but that the TTF faculty were divided, and Berdahl thought maybe he could split the TTF out of the union.

So in February, Berdahl and Geller hired two firms to try and stop the union organizing drive (my opinion). One was from San Francisco: Curiale, Hirschfeld, and Kraemer. Among other things, they run seminars on “Maintaining Union Free Status”. Not sure how that squares with Geller’s claims that UO was neutral on the organizing effort, but that’s water under the bridge, right, Randy? Their contract with Geller and the initial invoice for $7,834.71are here. Additional invoices thru Nov 2012 here.

The other firm was Frohnmayer’s “Harrang Long Gary and Rudnick”, a.k.a. HLGR, with Sharon Rudnick as the lead attorney. (This summer Geller wrote a brief defending HLGR’s efforts to double a legal bill to the state to $864,000, of which about 20% was for Rudnick). Their initial contract is here. Invoices through Nov 2012 here.

So, what’s the damage so far? (Check back for updates, I’ve got a big stack of invoices to wade through)

No probable cause that Frohnmayer committed misconduct

Long story. The complaint to the bar’s ethics committee against Frohnmayer, Gary, and Pilliod was initiated by the wife of the Deschutes county DA, after they made an ethics complaint about him over some weird public records case involving the county. Frohnmayer collected quite a few billable hours from the Deschutes county taxpayers – about $55K total for HLGR – but his complaint was dismissed. Now the Bar has dismissed the counter-complaint against him, Gary, and Pilliod.

Full doc dump here and way too much more here. 2/25/13.

Knight Law School’s "Football and Conflict" trivia classes

2/15/2013 Note: This post has a record number of comments, which have raised many issues in addition to those in the post. I want to apologize for the personal pain this post has caused for the instructors in the CNC program. As I’ve written in the comments, I think it would be a good thing for UO to have a course or two on sports and conflict. I’ve thought about teaching a course in sports economics myself. The law school now has a professor teaching sports law. These are all reasonable things for a university to teach. But 10 courses on this narrow subject are far too many. Upper division courses should have prerequisites, and tenure track faculty with research interests in the subject should be teaching at least some of them. This goes double for courses with graduate level credit. I think the CNC program has been mismanaged by the Law School, and that ultimately means by the Dean, Michael Moffitt.

2/10/2013: Back in 2008 ODE reporter Allie Grasgreen wrote about Pat Kilkenny’s $1 million gift to support UO’s academic side:

University President Dave Frohnmayer announced the Kilkennys’ gift at a press conference Thursday. Frohnmayer called the donation “an extraordinary gift from an extraordinary couple.” …

The $1 million donation will establish two academic programs. The first is “Competition Not Conflict,” which will feature classes within the Knight Law Center that focus on conflict resolution in sports. 

“We had years where this was just to us a good idea,” said School of Law associate professor Michael Moffitt, “and it is now with the Kilkennys’ gift that this can be more than just a good idea.”

After a few trial years, Kilkenny’s good idea came up for faculty review last month. The UO Senate Committee on Courses rejected every single course – unanimously:

Why did the faculty reject these courses? Consider CRES 410: “Football and Conflict”, conveniently taught in Room 101 of the Jaqua Center for Student-Athletes – or, as the NY Times calls it, “UO’s Jock Box”. The law school has been giving out 4 upper division undergraduate credits for this course, despite the fact it has no prerequisites. They’ll even give you graduate credits for it. They took tuition money from 89 students for this last fall. And what did those students learn? A UO Matters operative retrieved the final exam from the Jock Box dumpster:

Try your luck on the full 45 football trivia questions here. Kilkenny’s program also includes:

and this spring you can take

Sign up soon, because I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be a long, long time before the Law school lets these courses get taught again.

In totally unrelated news, Kilkenny’s “Lucky Duck” foundation has now given a total of $570,000 to Frohnmayer’s Fanconi Foundation. The timeline?

Year         Gift         Notes
2005 $0
2006  $240K  Kilkenny gives UO $2M to buy out longtime AD Bill Moos
2007 $100K Frohnmayer appoints Kilkenny as AD
                                Frohnmayer lets Kilkenny piss away UO money on baseball
2008 $100K Frohnmayer gets Matt Court Arena bonds through legislature
2009 $50K Frohnmayer retires and Kilkenny leaves as AD
                                Kilkenny invests in new apartment buildings next to Matt Court
2010 $80K Bellotti scandal
2011  ?
2012       ?
2013       ?

IRS 990 here. For 2006:

And Dean Moffitt still seems in denial about what’s really going with this program: In the NYT a day after I posted this:

At the University of Oregon, Michael Moffitt, the law school’s dean, has started clinics on nonprofit groups, environmental policy and probate mediation. He has also set up law courses for students in other parts of the university, which brings revenue to the law school. 

“The problem is that we have been selling only one product,” Mr. Moffitt said. “But if you are getting a business degree, you need to know about contract law. City planners need to know about land-use law. So we at Oregon are educating not just J.D. students. 

“Demand is through the roof,” he added. “I feel like I am living a business school case study.” 

And what kind of life could top that? But go to the list of classes the law school is offering to undergraduates, here. About 250 students are enrolled in the kinds of solid courses Moffitt tells the NYT about. But 300 are in Kilkenny’s sports conflict courses. Probably a good idea not telling the Times that little detail. (Thanks to Anon for tip in the comments.) 2/11/2013.

Child porn update: Union Bargaining VIII for 2/7/2013.

Update: 

Prof. Barbara Altmann accuses faculty union of supporting child pornography. 

Update #4 on the Admin blog, for today 2/7/2013:

In perhaps the most extreme section, the Union proposed that “[t]he content of faculty profiles in social media (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc) shall not be considered during any evaluation of a faculty member.” What if a bargaining unit member is using social media to threaten and intimidate colleagues? What about in a case of child pornography?

I’m no child pornographer, but I’m guessing if I was, and posting it on Facebook, the Dean would be the least of my worries. Ok, maybe it’s not really Barbara writing this garbage – maybe JH is just putting her name on something written by one of their law firms, or Randy Geller. Her blog invites people to email her and ask her questions. So what the hell, lets see who is behind the Johnson Hall child porn ring:

Subject: public records request: union child pornography 

Date: February 7, 2013 7:21:59 PM PST
To: Lisa Thornton , David Hubin
Cc: Barbara Altmann , Randy Geller , Doug Blandy , Tim Gleason , James Bean , doug park  

Dear Ms Thornton:
This is a public records request for a copy of any emails containing all of the words “child”, “pornography” (or porn) and “union”, sent or received by Michael Gottfredson, Randy Geller, Doug Park, Tim Gleason, Doug Blandy, Barbara Altmann, or Jim Bean, from 1/1/2013 to the present.  

I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest, as demonstrated by the “bargaining update #4” on this topic, posted by Professor Altmann on the official UO administration information blog at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/ 


Today’s Bargaining session:

Thursday 2/7/2013, 8-12 AM, 450 Lillis: Be there. Word is that Sharon Rudnick will buy all the faculty who show up Voodoo donuts out of her $3200 daily take, or roughly what our students pay for 16 credits of in-state tuition.

Live blog disclaimer: My interpretation of what people said, meant, meant to say, or what I wished they’d said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

Prelude: UConn has a faculty union and is in the middle of a big push to be the next university to get into the AAU, including hiring of hundreds of tenure-track teaching and research faculty. UO hired a total of 17 new TTF last year (net) and our research plans are in total disarray, thanks to Interim Provost Jim Bean’s incompetence,lack of focus, and distraction by athletics.

Live-blog: No donuts. WTF? And why does everyone on the admin team have the same smile? Is this why they don’t let Geller show up anymore – he can’t do it?
Doug Blandy
Sharon Rudnick
Tim Gleason


Today’s Cast: No Blandy, no Cecil, no Altmann, no Geller. Where is Geller – still working for Gottfredson?

Scene I:

Rudnick: You’ve been talking out of two sides of your mouth when you say you will talk with the deans but don’t accept that they will talk with faculty. “I don’t mean to be judgmental but it seems you have a schizophrenic view of things.” Mauer: We need a certain amount of trust.

Academic freedom and responsibility:
This should be good – presumably Geller’s had a hand in it after being read the riot act by Gottfredson over his prior attempt at a university policy. Rudnick: I’ll let Tim Gleason talk about this. Then she keeps on talking… We took this from the UF CBA and the AAU Red Book and Oregon law. Gleason: I don’t have much to add. Freedoms and responsibilities. Mauer: We can find the policy on-line? Rudnick: Yes. (Actually, No. A substantially revised policy is currently up for Senate approval, probably in April, but Geller has been sitting on it for 18 months. Check this link for an old redlined version, this was a huge fight with the Senate Executive last year, Geller wouldn’t appear to defend it, much to Dave Hubin’s embarrassment.) Rudnick: Starts lecturing Mauer about faculty, gets that loud angry thing going again. Does this work for her in court? Gleason: Def of disruptive is based not on content, but on how disruptive the context is in which the speech is made. Mauer: These other clauses look good. Mauer: What about g): “Seek change only in ways that don’t obstruct the functions of the university.” (Me: Frohnmayer, Lariviere, and Berdahl all accused much of pretty much exactly this for running UO Matters, requesting “too many” public records, etc.) Same with Geller and his GC Emerita Melinda Grier. Gleason: I don’t think we mean’t this to address civil disobedience. Rudnick jumps in again: nothing in this article would prohibit that. Mauer: pitch a tent outside JH? Rudnick: that would be OK. Mauer: We’ll see what happens when the Dalai Lama appears. Green: Suppose students and faculty block catering trucks from getting to a donor dinner (because the donor got rich off Philip Morris work). Gleason: Say it’s trespass. This policy would be irrelevant because that would be civil disobedience. Rudnick: Nothing in this policy would discourage that, but we could have our cops arrest you and then fire you for illegal activity. Pratt: Suppose the admin decides they want a particular program or course content, but faculty disagreed. (I’m thinking the sports conflict program in law). Would that constitute obstruction? Gleason: That wouldn’t be obstruction. Pratt: Better if it said obstruct “mission of university” rather than “functions of the university”. Rudnick: OK.

(Commenter: “Nothing in this Article affects the University’s right to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” Me: That’s new. by “the University” they mean “the Administration”. Sneaky one, Gleason.)

Rudnick: What faculty say in public must be said with restraint. (WTF?) Threshold for university to take action is very high – must show person is not fit for position because of their conduct. (Me: Both Frohnmayer and Berdahl have used my statements on this blog to accuse me of being a bad social scientist – Berdahl while he was Interim President. This clause seems to protect them, and to allow UO to discipline me for my speech?)

The bargaining team has been hammering Rudnick and Gleason on this, they keep backing down, but they are going to need to revise this language a lot.

Blandy enters. ~20 faculty also show up. You missed the nasty part, guys.

Mauer: Can you identify yourself as a UO professor when making protected speech? Green: What about a blog. Rudnick: Should have a disclaimer (whew, I’m good). … Mauer: Lets move on for now and come back to this.

Article 12: Admin’s response on NTTF evaluation and promotion. 

Rudnick: I’m just going to walk through to justify my $400 an hour, then Blandy will answer questions since he only gets $75 – what we charge you for a stenographer. (Lots of productive back and forth here, Rudnick’s decibel level is appropriately modest, for once.) Rudnick: We’ve finally figured out librarians. We talked to the librarians, they want to stick to annual. Mauer doesn’t miss a beat “You consulted with them how?” Rudnick: Uh, we talked with their dean, who said everyone was happy over there. (Lots of unusually productive back and forth on this between Rudnick and Mauer, she’s earning a little of her pay this time. Say $150.)

Mauer: Break time. Rudnick: I’ll make a donut run.

Scene II: Still no donuts.

Art 38: University counterproposal on Jury duty.
Snoozer.

Art 15: Union counterproposal on Grievance Procedure. 
Mauer: Union must have the right to file grievances on behalf of members. E.g. an individual is reluctant to file for fear of retaliation. More than one person might be effected, more efficient for union to file one, rather than many. This is standard procedure. Rudnick: We want to be sure a grievance is about an actual problem that has an impact (OK) and we want to talk to the faculty who are being impacted (what if they want the union to do it?) Don’t want a grievance over, say a difference in interpretation that doesn’t lead to action. Mauer: First is fine, Second not, Third craft some language for us, not a problem. More talk on dates.

Art 16:  Union counterproposal on Arbitration. 
Mauer: going through this line by line, … agree, disagree, …

Next time: Mauer: You’ll be prepared with more counters next time? Rudnick: yes.

The end. See you in 2 weeks.

Frohnmayer’s law firm pleas for more state cash

9/30/2012. It’s a twisted story. The DOJ hired an expert who says Harrang Long et al. padded their bill with top-heavy lawyers:

If Bill Gary gets his way with the court, his 32 page counter-plea will yield a rather remarkable $27,000 per page (double-spaced). Paid for by the 53% of us who pay taxes, I guess. Sharon Rudnick is down for $52,280, but Randy Geller thinks we should double that.

Geller also hired Rudnick as UO’s anti-union lawyer. Randy Geller wants to charge me $70 to see the contracts. No public interest here, President Gottfredson?

Frohnmayer loses another ethics case

First he and Bill Gary lost the one against DA Patrick Flaherty, for which his firm was paid $55,000 by Deschutes county taxpayers. Still no word on the counter complaint against them by Flaherty’s wife. Now Nigel Jaquiss reports the bar has also dismissed the Frohnmayer Gary complaint against John Kroger’s Sean Riddell. But the efforts by Frohnmayer’s firm and UO General Counsel Randy Geller to get $864,000 from the DOJ for a public records case continue.

Frohnmayer on Constitution Day

Dave gives a nice talk. It’s not yet clear if Randy Geller’s efforts to help Frohnmayer’s firm get paid an extra $432,000 from his suit against the Oregon DOJ will pay off. I should have more documents in a few days. Still nothing new on the counter-ethics complaint filed with the Oregon Bar against Frohnmayer and Gary over claims they made during their unsuccessful pursuit of an ethics complaint against the Deschutes County DA. They billed the county $55,000 for their work on that politically motivated complaint. 9/18/2012.

Frohnmayer et al billed Deschutes County $55K

for pursuing an unsuccessful ethics complaint against DA Patrick Flaherty:

Update: For a copy of the $35,000 summer contract Berdahl wrote Frohnmayer, see page 15 here. For info on Randy Geller’s efforts to get his firm $864,000 plus new UO contracts, see here.

County Counsel Mark Pilliod supplied these contracts and detailed invoices promptly and without charge – far more helpful than UO’s General Counsel’s office, which responds to public records requests with invoices like these – when they respond at all.

And thanks to that muckracking Jack Bog for the link.

Frohnmayer loses one ethics case, two others still open

It’s a long story. And some might say Frohnmayer won in the economic sense, having successfully billed the Deschutes County taxpayers for $550 an hour for his work pursuing this failed, politically motivated complaint, while simultaneously collecting a UO paycheck as “President Emeritus” and the 5th highest PERS payout in Oregon history – not that I’m an economist.

But two weeks ago the Oregon Bar’s ethics board rejected the complaint Frohnmayer had been pursuing against Deschutes County DA Patrick Flaherty. Meanwhile the countervailing ethics complaint against Frohnmayer et al. is still open. Last I heard he and Bill Gary of Harrang Long et al had just ignored the Bar’s request for a response to this letter accusing them of a variety of violations of legal ethics rules.

What does all this have to do with Randy Geller’s efforts to help Frohnmayer and his firm get UO contracts plus a double payment on their billing of $432,000 for a public records case involving former AG John Kroger? Or Frohnmayer’s ethics complaint against former AAG Sean Riddell? Nothing, apparently. Interesting way to make a living though. 8/6/2012.