Oregon’s average income rose 2.7%, UO’s faculty fell 1.1%

2/5/2019:  After adjusting for cost of living increases, Oregonian’s average real income rose 2.7% last year:

The UO faculty, not so much:

1/18/2019: Provost announces 1.1% pay cut for UO faculty

I’m no economist, but I can subtract. Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the cost of living in the western US increased by 3.1% over the past year. And this week our Provost reported that UO faculty would get an average 2% raise:

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

I want to remind you that January is the month when fiscal year 2019 salary increases kick in for both represented and non-represented tenure-track faculty (TTF) and career non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF) at the University of Oregon.

The fiscal year salary increases are provided to faculty members who meet the eligibility criteria, which requires an appointment as of December 31, 2018.
Faculty members currently in the tenure-track classification received a 1.25 percent across-the-board increase on January 1, 2019, and that will appear on the January 31 paychecks. There’s an additional pool of 0.75 percent to address equity that will be distributed after an internal study currently underway is completed. Funds from this equity pool will be distributed as soon as they are available, consistent with the United Academics collective bargaining agreement and the related memorandum of understanding. For more information on the equity study, please refer to the Faculty Salary Equity Study webpage.

All increases provided from the equity pool will be retroactive to January 1, 2019. If there are funds remaining in the equity pool after equity decisions are made, those funds will be applied as an additional across-the-board increase to TTF.
Under the collective bargaining agreement, career NTTF members received a 2.0 percent across-the-board increase on January 1, 2019, with those increases appearing on the January 31 paychecks.

For more information on faculty salary increases, please refer to the Annual Salary Increases webpage. If you have any questions, please contact Human Resources by email at hrinfo@uoregon.edu or call 541-346-3159.

With warmest regards,
Jayanth Banavar
Provost and Senior Vice President

Next year the faculty union’s MOU with the adminstration calls for average raises of 2.125%: 1.625% for merit, and 0.5% for external equity, so exceptionally excellent faculty in departments that have been underpaid for years may actually get small increases in real pay. The rest will get another cut.

How are we doing in comparison to other universities? I don’t know, the annual update on UO’s IR page from the AAUDE data is now 4 months late, and Director JP Monroe has stopped responding to my emails.

UO and comparator faculty pay by rank & gender, and admin pay

Updated below with info from Marie Vitulli (Math Emerita).

The 2015-16 AAUP salary survey is now out, and I’ve posted it below after the 2014-15 IPEDS data from the Chronicle. These data are self-reported by universities to the DoE or the AAUP, and not always accurately or consistently across universities. The definitions also vary across the two surveys, as do the comparison groups they provide.

I was surprised to see that the gender gap at UO shrinks with faculty rank both in dollars and percentages, and almost disappears in the AAUP data. In contrast, for both sets of comparison universities the gap is pretty constant in percentages.

I wondered how much the gender gap varies across departments. For UO, you can get average pay by department and rank (but not gender) for 2014-15 from Institutional Research here. Or you can really drill down in the individual salaries – Feb 2016 is here. (When I looked for my department, I found some large errors in the IR summary data.) IR has also posted a “Faculty Equity & Inclusion Report” here, but it does not have any salary data. How odd.

For 2014-15, from the Chronicle (IPEDS):

Screen Shot 2016-04-10 at 11.48.30 PM

For 2015-16, from the AAUP:

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 3.08.59 AM

UO’s AAUP numbers are basically unchanged from last year, because during bargaining the administration insisted on delaying the raises until after the survey due date.  Marie Vitulli (Math Emerita) has sent in this, comparing UO to our 8 AAU comparators. There is more on her website here.

By gender:

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 3.04.11 PM

Overall, we’re dead last in pay, except we edge out Iowa for assistants. Because they know Uncle Bernie will ask, the AAUP also reports total compensation numbers, i.e. pay plus benefits. The ratio of benefits to salary for UO is higher than average, although the AAUP is careful to point out that total compensation measures the cost of benefits to the institution, not the value of the benefits to the faculty. I’m not getting a lot of benefit from Mike Bellotti’s $500K PERS deal, but it’s sure costing UO and other state employers a lot. For health insurance, UO pays the same rate as all state employers, even though UO workers are healthier than average.

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 4.48.49 PM

And for a comparison, overall in 2013-14:

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 4.51.53 PM

I don’t know why the salary numbers UO reports to the feds are so different from the numbers they report to the AAUP. Note that the AAU also uses a very different comparison group: public universities that grant a certain numbers of doctoral degrees. PSU, for example, is in the AAUP comparator group but not the Chronicle one. (The data on instructor/lecturer/NTTF/contingent pay is not very comprehensive, so I’ve omitted it.)

For non-academic employees, the Chronicle reports that average UO pay for those classified as Management for 2014-15 was $124,406 vs. $114,465 for all VHR universities. UO pay for Office/admin support was $41,417 vs. the VHR average of $44,090. I don’t think these cross-university comparisons are very reliable because of differences n the definitions, but the time trends for UO should be, and the pay increases for Management at UO have been remarkable:


Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 1.00.58 AM


Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 12.59.48 AM


Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 12.59.11 AM

Faculty pay by rank, gender time-trends 2004-2014 (2014 means the 2014-15 AY):

Continue reading

UO Institutional Research updates faculty, administrative, athletic pay

Normally they post this by the quarter, but, in my opinion, UO didn’t want to reveal the administrative and athletics spending during SEIU and faculty union bargaining (UAUO’s Unfair Labor Practices complaint is here) so this time it’s all in one pdf for the 2014-15 AY. Handy reverse-engineered excel spreadsheets, courtesy of a UOM friend who knows some bash and grep:

  • 2014-15 here
  • 4th quarter 2013-2014 (i.e. April-June 2014) here for comparison.

The original awkward PDF’s here. Presumably IR will post the pdf for July, Aug and Sept 2015 soon,at which point I’ll add that excel file above.

Union proposes 7% + 6% to get faculty to Lariviere target. Bargaining Session IV: Economics, Thursday 2/26 10AM.

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 11.33.20 AM
That’s Tobin Klinger in the back right, presumably he’ll have an “Around the 0” post up soon with the Duck view of the meeting.

2/26/2015 update: The union proposes raises of

July 2015:
2.5% ATB
2.0% Merit
1.0% Internal equity pool for each department
1.5% External equity pool, to be allocated across rank and dept. based on AAU public averages. No external equity raise from this pool to exceed 5%.

July 2016:
2.5% ATB
4.0% Merit

As before, 8% promotion raises, and 8% (exceeds expectations) or 4%(meets) 6th year review raises after promotion to full, and raises in the hiring floors for NTTFs.

My estimate is that this will get UO salaries to the AAU public peer averages by July 2016. The 2009 Lariviere/Coltrane/Bean plan would have done this by July 2013 or so, but that’s money under the bridge:

From: James Bean [mailto:jcbean@uoregon.edu]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:26 PM
To: Deans Working Group
Subject: Faculty Salaries
The Missouri article stating that UO has the lowest salaries in the AAU has caused quite a stir (we have since verified that they were correct). Low salaries were always thought of as just Oregonian. But 34 out of 34 is a whole other thing. We cannot have this. Richard’s reaction was “this is job #1.” Richard will likely have an announcement on how we are attacking this when politically feasible (after last gavel). Please communicate to your faculty that the Missouri article really got our attention. This may require disruptive solutions.
Thanks, Jim
James C. Bean
Senior Vice President and Provost

Five days later, the Register Guard’s Editors essentially endorsed Lariviere’s plan to get UO faculty to the AAU medians:

The market for academic talent is national, even global. From a salary standpoint, Oregon has dropped out of the competition. The state is fortunate in having universities that continue to meet high standards, but Oregon’s advantages — a relatively low cost of living and a high quality of life — can only be relied upon to make up part of the salary deficit.

Richard Lariviere, who will become president of the UO in July, comes to Eugene from the University of Kansas, an AAU university with an average faculty salary of $91,400 — 25 percent higher than at the UO. He’s no doubt aware that higher education claimed 15.1 percent of Oregon’s general fund budget in 1987-89, but received only 6.4 percent in 2007-09. One of Lariviere’s continuing challenges will be to persuade Oregon’s governor and Legislature that underfunding higher education has consequences.

In March 2011 Scott Coltrane, at the time CAS Dean, announced his plans to implement this for CAS faculty:

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 3.38.22 PM

Russ Tomlin, then VP for Academic Affairs, released a detailed spreadsheet showing the plan for the entire UO, designed to get salaries to the AAU comparator averages by no later than 2014:

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 3.43.29 PM

But then Kitzhaber and Pernsteiner fired Lariviere, and Allyn Ford and the OUS Board replaced him with Bob Berdahl, then Mike Gottfredson. They devoted all their energies to fighting with the faculty over pay, and everything else.

Getting back to the present, Coltrane’s administration is hiding basic financial information from the union – which has been waiting for more than 3 months, and has paid $1700. Rumor has it that Moffitt and Shelton are also hiding this information from the Administration’s bargaining team, if that makes it any more excusable.

They will make their economic counterproposal on March 12.

(Jim Bean, of course, is still collecting his pork from the administration’s bloated budget.)

12:01 PM: Lots of talk now about national searches. This is all about faculty searches. The administration hires its own people without any search whatsoever, e.g. $130K AVP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett. So it’s pretty amusing to listen to Bill Brady talk about how such searches are needed to increase diversity.

12:30PM: Session IV ends. Session V, with the admins counterproposal on raises, will open with a presentation from Jamie Moffitt, explaining where she’s been spending all our money. In the Library Collaboration room, 10AM Thursday, March 12. Should be well worth attending.

2/15/2015: Some history: In 2013 the union opened with a proposal for 9% raises for each of the two years of the contract. Basically this was the Lariviere plan, to get UO salaries to the AAU medians. The University countered with, if I remember correctly, an offer of 2%, for one year. Rudnick, Gleason, and Blandy said this was all UO could afford, saying UO had already spent the Lariviere money on other things.

Months of bitter haggling ensued. VPFA Jamie Moffitt refused to give the union the documents showing UO’s budget projections:

The union brought in Howard Bunsis, a forensic accountant, to challenge those few budget numbers that Moffitt would provide. Bunsis showed that Moffitt had been building a large and increasing reserve – so large it broke OUS’s rules. Moffitt fled the room in tears. Literally.

The University then made a take it or leave it offer of, if I remember right, 5.5% spread over 2 years. More was impossible. Rudnick told us “The well is dry”.

The union ignored the threat. Eventually we got ~12% in raises, spread over two years. Plus Tim Gleason’s $350 in Goat money. What will happen this time? Show up Thursday and find out: Continue reading

UO faculty salaries $20K below AAU averages, whilst senior admins cash in

The bargaining for a new faculty union contract starts in January. UO’s IR department has just released the data from the AAU Data Exchange on UO faculty salaries, pasted below. Full data, by department, here. I’ve added a spreadsheet showing the salary and comparators for our Johnson Hall administrators below that. (Note that the figure and table use different comparator groups, and also that UO is now using all AAU publics rather than the OUS 8 as the comparator. I’m sorry for the lack of NTTF and GTF data, but the AAU doesn’t care enough about you to collect it in any reliable fashion.)

I don’t know if UO’s reported faculty salaries include the 2013-14 union negotiated ATB and Merit raises, or Tim Gleason’s $350 goat. But UO clearly is way behind Richard Lariviere’s plan to get UO faculty to the AAU averages – by fall 2014. (Note that Lariviere was talking about the 8 OUS comparators, not all AAU publics as UO is now using, but this does not matter much to the conclusions.) Meanwhile Jamie Moffitt’s reserves continue to grow. Lariviere’s plan is here, as described in his 2011 letter to Pernsteiner:

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 10.39.32 AM

It ain’t happening:

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 at 11.19.35 PM

But Johnson Hall is doing more than fine:

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 at 11.59.29 PM

Time series for the faculty?

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 12.20.30 AM

UO Senate to Gottfredson: “Asked, and answered”

5/12/2014 Update: By an accident of history, President Gottfredson’s Q&A about the latest athletic scandal at the upcoming Wednesday May 14 Senate meeting will come on the anniversary of his first sustained interaction with the UO faculty, the infamous 2013 “asked and answered” debacle. (Yes, he managed to wait almost 10 months after taking office to meet the UO faculty.)

Since then, it’s been all downhill. I know there are those counseling we wait for the UO Board to deal with this disastrous president, and maybe they’re right. (Although I doubt that’s the message the alumni and parents are sending.) But here’s a little history to support the argument that enough is enough, and that if we don’t get answers from Gottfredson on Wednesday, we should hold an immediate vote of no-confidence:

5/14/2013: President Gottfredson’s first talk with UO faculty goes very badly.

Update on the shared governance “conversation” with President Gottfredson:

Our president’s most common response to the faculty is now a curt “read my written remarks” or “asked and answered”, a phrase lawyers use to semi-politely insult each other, when objecting to a question in court.

Continue reading

Good PERS returns to reduce faculty subsidy for Bellotti’s pension?

Good news on PERS. High investment earnings and Kitzhaber’s cuts mean that it’s now 87% funded. I think that’s the best of any state pension fund. Ted Sickinger has the report, here.

But let’s face it, no one reads this blog for the good news. And the bad news is that UO is still on the hook for the unfunded pension liability of people like former football coach Mike Bellotti. Sickinger’s investigative piece on how UO’s decision to funnel Bellotti’s Nike money through UO boosted the pension for him and his wife former wife wife to ~$500K a year, and how we have to pay for it, is here.

The other good news? If you are pre-1995 Tier 1 faculty and opted into the ORP plan in 1996, (typically TIAA-CREF) UO’s contribution rate to your account is determined in part by the need to pay PERS the unfunded liability for the payouts to Bellotti and his ilk. The more Bellotti gets, the more UO has to pay PERS, and the more they have to pay into your retirement account. And if you are not Tier 1, or stayed in PERS, you don’t need to worry much about further cuts.

The bad? The S&P 500 was up 30% last year, so Treasurer Ted Wheeler 16% PERS earnings are not very impressive, even after a healthy risk adjustment. He would have done much better for the State by simply buying the basket, and furloughing his expensive stock-pickers. Also bad: If you went into the ORP, it’s now even more likely you could have done better staying in PERS. Even if you didn’t get a sweetheart deal from former UO General Counsel Melinda Grier, like Bellotti’s:

The ugly? UO’s PERS costs are set for the next 2 years, and VPFA Jamie Moffitt will likely use the fact that UO still has to pay for Bellotti in the next round of union negotiations – which will start in December – to argue that faculty are overpaid and that UO can’t afford more merit and equity money, just as she did last time. The probability that these rates will soon fall has increased, but I’m guessing if the union presses that point, Moffitt will choke and leave the room, just as she did last time.

CAS gave lower raises than UO policy required

10/22/13: Short version: If you are a full professor in CAS and had a successful 6th year review between 2006 and 2013, your subsequent raise was considerably less than required by OUS – say $3,000 on average. Multiply that by the number of years since your review and we’re talking a lot of goats. If you were not in CAS, the same may be true but I don’t have the documentation.

Long version: In 1998 OUS told its universities to craft and adopt a policy on post-tenure reviews and raises. UO’s policy was adopted in 1999, and is in the policy library here: http://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/0201-personnel/post-tenure-review. It says:

1. The third-year substantive review. This review shall be an element of annual salary adjustment decisions. 
2. The sixth-year major review. A positive evaluation at the sixth-year major review of a faculty member holding the rank of Full Professor or Tenured Senior Instructor shall result in the recommendation to the Provost of an increase to the base salary of that faculty member comparable in amount and funding source to that given for promotion. 

In 2006 CAS started giving 8% for promotions, but for full professors having 6th year reviews, the raises were only $2,000 for a passing review, and $4,000 for exceeding expectations.

The dollar amount of the gap will vary with salary and the outcome of the review, but for a salary of say $80K, under UO policy the raise for passing should have been $6,400. If your review was in 2006 and was excellent, this difference would be $17,000 or so in lost salary, plus the compounding on subsequent raises. Not that there were many.

Because all this happened before the union contract, I think if you are in this boat your first recourse is to ask CAS to do the right thing and make you whole. That said, I’ve raised the question with CAS without a substantive response, and I’m not sure what the second option is.

I’ll post more as I learn more. I don’t know the situation before 2006, or what promotion and review raise practices were outside CAS. 

Cal Bears crush Ducks by 35 points!

9/28/2013: Faculty salary averages for Fall 2012, from the Chronicle/AAUP data:

Honestly, this was a closer game than I’d expected for the faculty, given Berkeley’s academic chops. 
On the other hand President Gottfredson does make 11% more than Chancellor Dirks.
Next week is Colorado. Be warned: the salary spread doesn’t look good for Oregon. And Colorado also has a housing assistance program for new faculty, and for the full profs, up to 2 years salary as a lump-sum no teaching required incentive for their tenure reduction program. 
For the nostalgic, or those thinking forward to the inevitable tax-exempt bond scheme for expanding Autzen, here’s a little bit on former President Bob Berdahl and the Bear’s new money losing stadium:
From the Cal Athletic department website, Jan. 7, 2004

BERKELEY, CALIF.- University of California, Berkeley Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl announced today that he will endorse an ambitious plan to renovate Memorial Stadium, the campus’ 81-year-old football venue. The project, which could cost as much as 140 million dollars, will be funded entirely by private donations.

And yesterday, April 17, 2012 in the WSJ, from no less than Rachel Bachman:

As state legislators shrink its appropriations, it’s hard enough for the University of California-Berkeley to maintain the nation’s highest academic ranking among public colleges. But there now looms a financial threat from another, somewhat unlikely quarter: the university’s football program.

Until now, the years-old effort to renovate the school’s football stadium, which sits on an earthquake fault line, never raised many alarms. Although its $321 million price tag would make it one of the most expensive renovations in college sports history, the university said the project would be funded privately, largely through long-term seat sales and naming rights.

But three years into the fund-raising effort, a projected $270 million from the sale of seats has failed to materialize. At the end of December, the school had collected only $31 million in the first three years of the sale. Now it has become clear that the university will have to borrow the vast majority of the money.

In recent interviews, university officials acknowledge that if revenue projections fall short and won’t cover the bond payments, the shortfall “would have to come from campus.”

Bad news on future pay

9/26/2013: As near as I can tell UO has been spending about $50K a month on Sharon Rudnick and Kate Grado from HLGR to do the negotiating with the union, and another $30K or so a month for lawyers and consultants to write Barbara Altmann’s “fact check” website. That’s a lot of money for the rather pathetic FAQ they’ve posted on the union contract, here.

Ignoring their rather interesting spin on the IP, computer files, and consulting issues, there’s some astonishingly deceptive stuff comparing tuition and salary increases. They ignore the 2012-13 tuition increases, when faculty got nothing, and the fact that the legislature paid UO the difference between the 5% and 3.5% tuition increases:

Whatever. The real news is that Gottfredson has abandoned the Lariviere goal to get faculty pay to our comparators:

Q. Won’t faculty salaries remain far below our peers and AAU comparators? 

A. The salary package — which includes across-the-board raises, merit increases, promotion raises and money for tenure track and tenured faculty equity and NTTF salary floors — will move faculty salaries in the right direction. It is also important to look at total faculty compensation (salary + benefits). When benefits are included the gap closes substantially between the University and our comparator universities.

Of course, when differences in summer money etc. are added in, the gap gets wider. The bottom line is that Gottfredson just doesn’t think the UO faculty are worth more money (although he’s got a nice $360K fallback salary as a sociology professor). Compare the above with the language from Coltrane’s 2011 (draft) CAS Equity proposal:

c. Step 3 (as early as FY 2012/13 and no later than FY 2013/2014), increases based on internal equity and merit.

The total amount of funding made available for salary increases by the College in Step 3 will be at least the amount necessary to increase the College’s average salaries to make up the remaining distance to the average salaries of the OUS 8 comparators. 

 So, it’s looking like I was excessively optimistic with this forecast that we’d catch up to the AAU public average by 2021:

But hey, what about that goat! Yes, Gottfredson is throwing the faculty a bone, in the form of a few thousand in one time catch-up payments, a month or so after we sign the union contract. Here’s the math:

Q: How long, Provost Coltrane, how long?

9/23/2013: A: Seven years and $70K, best case scenario.

Interim Provost Scott Coltrane’s email about the new faculty contract is here. He offers to answer questions. I’ve got a few, and I’ll keep you posted on the answers. You’ll have a chance to ask him yourself during the public presentation he will have to make as candidate for the permanent UO Provost job.

Meanwhile, here’s the math on how long it will take to get to comparators, and an estimate of what you’ll lose meanwhile – about $70,000, lower bound.

The faculty union did what it could. But while Gottfredson was happy to pay Sharon Rudnick and her consultants $1M, his word is that “the well is dry” when it comes to faculty pay, and Coltrane now seems just fine with that:

The original faculty union proposal, of 1.5%, 8%, 9% (which Gottfredson’s team laughed at) followed by a second contract at 6%, 6%, would have got us to the AAU average by 2016 – just 3 years later than the Lariviere proposal:

The next contract will need to be 10%, 10% to reach this goal, which the administration has purported to want to achieve since the 1998 Senate White paper.

In the scheme of a $800 million budget, we’re not talking about a lot of money. But it’s not going to happen unless we spend the next 18 months exposing Johnson Hall’s money wasting activities, and convince the new UO board that faculty are more important to their university’s future than more administrative bloat, sports subsidies, and expensive White Stag distractions.

Tennessee Vols beat Ducks by 10 points!

9/15/2013 benefits update – turns out we only lost by 9.75%.

For retirement, Tennessee gives new employees a choice, much like UO.

Tennessee pays the full cost of the defined contributions plan, like UO. It puts 10-11% into the employees defined contribution account – faculty pay nothing. UO puts 6.42% into its defined contribution plan, plus the 6% pickup, for 12.42% total
For defined contributions, cost is pretty much what you get, so UO’s ORP retirement for new faculty hires is worth just 2% more than Tennessee’s. And as a commenter notes you should adjust for the higher salaries going into the plan, and also for the fact that their 11% rate kicks in for most of the faculty. So, lets says it’s worth 0.25% less than UO’s.

For earlier hires and OPSRP, it’s way harder to compare. Uncle Bernie and me take stabs at trying to estimate the value of UO retirement benefits for pre-1996 hires here.

9/14/2013: Last week The Virginia Cavaliers crushed us by 19%.

Coach Gottfredson needs to make some big changes
in his game plan after these two losses. Next game is UC-Berkeley,
at home. The spread doesn’t look good, Duck fans.

Faculty salary averages for Fall 2012, from the Chronicle/AAUP data:

Great news for UO finances!

9/10/2013: The latest US News rankings are great news for UO’s finances:

The University of Oregon moved up in the rankings — jumping six rungs to No. 109 on the list of about 1,376 colleges nationally.

And Christian Whithol of the RG reports on still more good financial news for UO: Eugene’s latest city subsidized student rental – aimed at some pretty well off students:

The company, which has been promised a $4.55 million property tax break by the city, has submitted new and more detailed plans that show a wealth of upscale amenities for the 139-foot-high building. They include a pool and hot tub on the roof and, on a lower story, a fitness and leisure complex that would feature another hot tub, golf simulator, billards room, piano room, steam room, two tanning rooms, a sauna, yoga room and lounge.

According to Zillow, rents in Eugene are well below the levels in our competitor college towns such as Boulder, Seattle, Phoenix, and LA. In contrast to those towns, the increase in the supply has kept rents level in Eugene, despite the increase in the number of students. The new construction coming on line this fall should lead to rent decreases – judging by the reports of unhappy local landlords.

Because parents look at these rankings and at total cost of attendance, this means that UO has plenty of room to continue out-of-state tuition increases, while staying competitive for students.

So expect another round of raises for UO central administrators, as soon as the faculty and SEIU sign their contracts.

Bargaining XXXIX: Academic Freedom, Computers. Gottfredson to show for session? Nope.

Tuesday 9/10/2013, Room 122 or 101 Knight Library. 1PM til 5.

Live Blog disclaimer: These are my opinions of what people said or meant or should have said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. If you don’t like my blog read the United Academics one on facebook, here.


  • Rudnick lectures faculty: Give up: “you all need to get focused on your students.”
  • Use of UO computers and networks: Geller is no longer claiming he can look at anything on your computer for any reason, but still reserves the right to look at it for any legal “administrative reasons”. Rudnick tries to sell this as a concession, raising the question of whether or not they meant “illegal” administrative reasons in their previous proposal. Rudnick can’t produce any current UO policy showing which admins can read your email for which reasons.
  • Academic Freedom and Free Speech: Current UO policy: “Free inquiry and free speech are the cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and transfer of knowledge. Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not solely for those who present and defend some view but for those who would hear, disagree, and pass judgment on those views. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or “just plain wrong” cannot be grounds for its suppression.” Admins propose to strike all this language.
  • Consulting and Intellectual property: sides are miles apart. Discussion to continue Th at 1PM.
  • Good news: UO’s US News ranking improves, which will mean a further strengthening in UO’s finances.
  • Salary: Goat is still on the table, union counter on Thursday? 
  • Retirement: Sitting on ~$150M in reserves, Jamie Moffitt wants the faculty to bear all the downside risk of an end to the 6% pickup.
  • Bottom line: Supposedly Gottfredson wants this deal done, but he is still trying to take back faculty rights that we have under current UO Intellectual Property, Academic Freedom, and Consulting policies.
Old update: Rumor has it that President Gottfredson and Provost Coltrane will be present, to make a “significant” announcement regarding contract negotiations. (Apparently not true.)

Old update #2: The administration’s fact-check pages are down, I hope forever. I’ve got a mirror Randy, let me know if you need it. Or just rummage through my hard-drive. (Fixed now, too bad.)


This proposal is “more than fair”. “The well is dry. Hear me please. The well is dry. This is an incredibly rich offer.”  

And we’ll give you $350 for a goat if you sign now. Details on the current admin offer here, page down.

  • Art 52 on Consulting: There’s a long discussion of how this proposal from President Gottfredson does an end run on 4 years of hard shared governance work here.
  • Academic Freedom: Geller and Gottfredson gut current UO policy, and ignore the proposed Senate revisions as well as the policy the UC Board just implemented for UC-Irvine etc. Here.

1:06: Room 122 is filling up, no sign of President or Provost yet. Maybe I got steered wrong.

Rudnick: I have 3 proposals. We can go til 5 and same Th. Our goal is to be done by then “because you all need to get focused on students”.

Admin Counter on professional responsibilities:

Rudnick: Nothing forbids counting union service towards faculty’s university service obligation.

Rudnick: Cross out the “Fair and transparent” part, that really gets our goat.

Mauer: Why wouldn’t departments be told they need to notify faculty of requirements?

Rudnick: blah, blah. Braun keeps on it.

Mauer: Lets move on, we’ll fix this for you.

Rudnick: We accept your stuff disallowing “arbitrary and capricious”

Admin counter on Acceptable use of computers and information assets:

Rudnick: We’ve moved significantly. Randy is no longer claiming he owns everything on your computer. However, if there is a risk about the security or integrity of the information you have stored, he can take your computer and access away.

Mauer: So, if you take it away for discipline, it’s grievable? Rudnick: Yes.

Rudnick: For example, someone has been disciplined, they might retaliate by messing with the computer system, we need to be able to remove their access.

Rudnick: Section 7, we agree to delete Randy’s “no expectation of privacy” language. We can still look at your files for legitimate university reasons.

Mauer: Such as?

Rudnick: Any reason we want, including administrative reasons.

Mauer: Suppose a dean is just curious. Lawful? Rudnick, in a tightlipped whisper: I don’t think so.

Cecil: But you’ve said before that would be lawful. Rudnick: No I haven’t?

Blandy: Would that be lawful?

Rudnick evades:

Mauer tries to pin her down. Rudnick continues to evade. “Look. This is a compromise. If it’s lawful and it’s related to university business, we can do it.”

Mauer continues to try to pin her down.

Gleason angrily spouts off about layers and university policy.

(Remember Tim, there is no university policy on this.)

Davidson brings up a plausible example involving a promotion where the administration would want to know about Would that be a lawful search related to university business?

(Something very similar just happened at Harvard.)

Rudnick continues to evade, to laughter.

Mauer: We’ll caucus. Meanwhile, what else are you packing today?

Admin Counter on Termination for financial exigency:

Gottfredson agrees to union language requiring a public meeting and faculty input prior to a university declaration of exigency that leads to faculty terminations. Pretty reasonable, what took so long?

Rudnick: Declaration of exigency is a matter for administration governance. Currently it would go through Senate. Open meetings, lots of opportunities for union participation. We will accept the shared governance idea. (But they won’t write the word Senate in the contract? Bizarre.)

Mauer: Our proposal says faculty can only be terminated for cause, exigency, or educational reasons. I read this to say you could also just to it for organizational reasons.

Rudnick: If we did that we’d have to find a lawful basis.

Mauer: I could see the university arguing that a reorganization allowed terminations. Rudnick: We’d have to show we had authority, say under management rights. OK, I understand your story, move on. She does.

Hey Tim, room’s getting crowded – is your side OK moving to 101? How about nudging Rudnick.

Cecil: So, we could write “faculty senate in here”? Rudnick: NO! And also, there’s no contractual role for the union. (WTF?)

Cecil: I’m familiar with boards, e.g. from the Lariviere firing. We’d like some stronger protections for our faculty.

Mauer: So, you deleted the language because you are petty and don’t want the word union in here, not because you want to take away contractual rights? Rudnick: Exactly.

Mauer: So this exigency language would allow termination of an NTTF with only, say, 2 days notice if that’s what was left on their contract? Rudnick: Yes.

Braun: Why did you take the NTTF protections out of sec 6?

Rudnick: I don’t know.

Anderson: And Sec 7?

Whispers to Tim, headshaking.

(Back bench notices she took it out without marking that in the text. Very sneaky, Ms Rudnick.)

Quick Caucus break. Come back in Room 101. 

2:51 The team’s are filtering back. 

Rudnick: For termination for exigency w/o cause, Randy has told us you can reinsert the protections for NTFF’s that we tried to slip by you.

Mauer: Our understanding is that evaluation policy should be fair and transparent, it’s just you can’t stand those words. So we agree to your deletions, with the assurance that there will be a memo from the Provost explaining the evaluations.

Blandy: Nods.

On computers: Rudnick: “University may withdraw computer access with subsequent notice and explanation to the union”? Cecil, Mauer: yes.

Mauer: We want presumed expectation of privacy for email, files. 

Rudnick: We will not agree to any language giving faculty a presumption of privacy. 

Mauer: We are trying to capture the idea that faculty don’t expect the administration looking over their electronic shoulder.

Rudnick: No, we will not agree. We reserve the right to look, if it’s university business.

Change “lawful” access to email and file from “lawful” to “legitimate”.

Rudnick: No. The administration will not agree to “legitimate”.

Cecil: Suppose faculty do a little personal shopping online. Would monitoring that be lawful?

Rudnick: There are laws about searches.

Cecil: So, under your language, would it be OK to monitor faculty internet use to see if they are working?

Rudnick: If it was a lawful search. It would depend on the circumstances.

Davidson: Suppose someone on a router was using “too much” bandwidth – could you do random searches of faculty email to see which faculty it was?

(So, what does the administration give up with this new language? All they are doing is agreeing to not break the law when accessing files – under the old language they were going to break it?)

Mauer’s on it. Rudnick continues to evade. But she then says monitoring for any legal work related reason would be OK under her proposal.

Bramhall: Are there policies that are published that we can see regarding who can access what for what reasons?

Rudnick: I’ve got some policy here somewhere, starts looking through manila folders. “I don’t know that I have it. I can email it to you.”



From Dave Hubin’s PRO:

On 7/13/13 you were provided with a link to the Data Access policy in the UO Policy Library, in response to your public records request for “documents showing current UO policy and practices regarding access by UO administrators outside the IT department to 

a) uoregon.edu email metadata 

b) uoregon.edu messages 

c) logs of internet use by IP address or UO login name, 

d) use to the Duckweb “Financial Transparency Tool

The office has searched for, but has been unable to locate, additional documents responsive to your request. Therefore, the office considers the information already provided to you to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter. Thank you for contacting the office with your request.

The policy they note is here, and does not address these questions. It was signed by President Gottfredson on 2/19/2013. While it addresses some of these questions, the procedures required by the policy were still not in place as of August.

Cecil: So, we’ll get back to you on that, Tim.

Union proposal for Release Time:

Mauer: We don’t like this but we agree, to move things forward.

Art 53, Union proposal on internal governance:

Art 3, Union proposal on shared governance:

Mauer: Some minor changes, we’ve agreed to many of your demands regarding taking out the Senate, etc.

Rudnick: Wonderful

Art 50, union proposal on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.

Mauer: Minor changes, now OK for psychology professors to trick their subjects.

Rudnick: That’s a TA (Temporary Agreement).

Big One: Art 7, union proposal on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.

Mauer: We keep the freedom to engage in internal criticism. We’ve discussed your efforts to limit that, we do not accept them.

Mauer: In section 2, we take out “and civilly”. We do not accept the idea that a lack of perceived civility, on its own, could trigger a disciplinary action against a faculty member. We took out “effective” for similar reasons – discipline for running a lousy meeting?

Rudnick: We’ll need to caucus before we discuss this.

(Note that even this union proposal is weaker than current UO and UC policy.) 

Current UO Policy at http://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/freedom-inquiry-and-free-speech

The University of Oregon values and supports free and open inquiry. The commitment to free speech and freedom of inquiry described in this policy extends to all members of the UO community: Faculty, staff, and students. It also extends to all others who visit or participate in activities held on the UO campus. 

Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society. The University encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they present themselves to this community. Further, as a public institution, the University will sustain a higher and more open standard for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or preferred in private settings. 

Free inquiry and free speech are the cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and transfer of knowledge. Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not solely for those who present and defend some view but for those who would hear, disagree, and pass judgment on those views. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or “just plain wrong” cannot be grounds for its suppression. 

The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.

Art 30: Union proposal on Overhead Policy and Transparency. (no, not the old overheads!)

This comes from a bunch of pissed off PIs. Mauer: We recognize that you don’t have to bargain on this. Cecil: We think it would be good for the university if the administration agreed to a committee to monitor Kimberly Espy.

Art 23: Union counter on retirement benefits:

Mauer on 6% pickup: You were worried about the policy that the pickup is eliminated as part of ending the pickup. We agree to renegotiate if that is the case.

Rudnick: Why did you take out PERS in Section 4? This would mean that if the law ended the pickup and everyone got it in salary, the PERS people would be whole, the ORP people would be 6% ahead. Gleason tries to figure it out. Rudnick schools him. No shame here Tim, this stuff is complicated.

Cecil’s on top of it though, kick back folks.

The discussion boils down to

a) We want the same language as other Oregon faculty contracts

b) Jamie has $150m in reserves for emergencies, but wants to shift the risk of this unlikely event onto the faculty.

Article 9, union proposal on Contracts:

This is about job security for NTTFs. Cecil: Contract mandates criteria for standards of excellence. We don’t expect that all NTTF faculty will be renewed. Some will not meet those standards. But if they do, we want job security for them.

4:32 Caucus break, back in a few.

5:00 They’re back:

Rudnick’s voice is gone. I can barely hear: She’s meeting with her handlers Wed AM. Discussion of Th. IP, Consulting, and Salary?

Cecil: Don’t forget nomenclature.

Rudnick: We’ll have counters on Academic Freedom, Contracts, Retirement.

Meet Th at 1PM. Rudnick finally agrees we can start in “a classroom” – Room 101 Knight Library.