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.

Synopsis: 

  • 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.)

Prologue:

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.”

Really?

http://uomatters.com/2013/07/is-randy-geller-reading-our-email.html

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.

Bargaining XXXVI: Rudnick violates UO respectful workplace policy?

Thursday 8/29/2013, 9am-4pm, room 122 Knight Library.

The admin team’s fact-check on this post should be quite interesting.

Lead admin negotiator and noted tobacco company lawyer Sharon Rudnick violates UO Respectful Workplace Policy?


If you’d showed up you’d probably know what I’m talking about. Don’t miss the next session: Tuesday, 9/3, 10AM. Your chance to get more verbal abuse, and hear President Gottfredson’s counter-proposal on raises.

Turns out VPAA and admin bargaining team member Doug Blandy is in charge of enforcement, and if multiple, independent reports from those present at today’s exciting bargaining meeting are correct, Rudnick may have violated UO policy. Perhaps twice:

The University of Oregon is noted for its strong tradition of collegiality and support for all members of the institution. Hostile, intimidating or abusive behavior damages the strong sense of community so valued at UO. Please join us in working to ensure that each member of our community benefits from a respectful and inclusive working and learning environment. 

We recognize that the demands of our jobs and stressful challenges in our work and personal lives can occasionally lead to moments of impatience and irritability. However, we want to take this opportunity to remind you that, regardless of the provocation or reason, it is never appropriate or acceptable to vent frustrations or conduct workplace business by yelling, using profanity or acting in a demeaning or verbally abusive way.

Blandy’s email is dblandy@uoregon.edu if anyone wants to file a complaint about his co-negotiator.
Synopsis:

  • Practice drill for strike goes off well. ~100 faculty show up on a summer day when they’re not even on contract. News on the SEIU strike preparation in the ODE here.
  • Some chatter about discipline for Rudnick over her disrespectful treatment of faculty and library staff this morning. Does UO’s respectful workplace policy apply to $300 an hour lawyers? Any truth to the rumor someone caught that on a cell phone video? Email me at uomatters or just post it on youtube already.
  • Union holds firm on raises, only minor concessions. Rudnick seems to have new instructions from Coltrane, sounds ready to deal.
  • After lunch, still about 60 faculty in the room. No visible support for the admin team. No Altmann, no Moffitt, no Geller, no one with any actual authority to deal. No wonder this takes forever.
  • After getting all medieval on me for “posting of false and inaccurate information about bargaining” the administration’s bargaining team is now trying to keep me from posting copies of the presumably fact-based transcripts they’ve been taking at every bargaining session – their stenographer has been typing away all day. Latest here
  • Art 49, use of UO computers, a.k.a as the Stasi Clause. They own you.

Your Guarantee of Truthiness: All UO Matters bargaining posts are fact-checked by Geller and Rudnick’s secret team of well paid consultants, who post their spin on the official UO Admin site, here. If you pay Dave Hubin $285.98 he’ll even tell you who wrote it.

Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said or were thinking but were too decent, or well-paid, to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. If you don’t like my blog read Luebke’s.


The faculty union needs you to show up at this session for as long as you can.
The union team will put its latest counter to Gottfredson and Coltrane’s 3.5% a year proposal on the table. Check out the data by rank and department. You are a long, long way from the Lariviere targets, and 3.5% a year is not going to cut it.

If you want to get a real raise, you need to show up and help put on the pressure. Word is that the much maligned part-time yoga instructors will be there to help out with stress reduction during the caucus breaks. Bring your mat, and be prepared to chant.

Raises: The elevator version:
We’re going down. During the first year of President Gottfredson’s administration UO faculty pay has fallen still further behind other AAU public universities:
  • Full profs: down from 85% to 82% 
  • Associate profs: down from 92% to 90% 
  • Assistant profs: down from 93% to 89%
The relative drops are mostly driven by pay raises at the other AAU schools, however UO’s average pay for assistants and fulls has actually fallen, presumably because of composition changes. The retroactive 1.5% ATB raise proposed by the admin’s for 2012-13 is only for 6 months, so it’s really only a 1% raise. Sneaky. Either way it is not close to enough to make up for the ~3% UO faculty lost relative to other AAU publics between Fall 2011 and Fall 2012. Much less enough to get the elevator going up. And the administration has been fibbing: UO benefits don’t make up salary gap.

Prologue: 


Live-blog:

9:04. Looks like 50 people so far. Rudnick is telling the faculty they can’t sit behind the admins – don’t want us seeing the transcripts they are taking down.

Admins walk out looking pissed. Cecil lays down the rules: It’s the library: whisper. No eye-rolls, those really drive Rudnick batty.

9:22: They’re back. Blandy, Rudnick, Gleason, Grado, stenographer.

Mauer: Let’s review. Here we are on progress and tasks needed. Our view is we can use this session and the 2 next week to get a final agreement. We need:

1) Work to do: IP – big disagreements. Workload, career paths, job security. We think we can both make reasonable compromises.

2) More difficult: Governance. We’ve had the Senate, but faculty have now voted to also be represented by UA. What led to that was an unfortunate history, not your fault. Admin believed faculty were not constructive on admin matters, faculty thought admin was incompetent. Key to success is to *not* supplant Senate, but to provide support for its role. Admin sees union as distinct, not as a partner with the existing forms of shared governance. (Too true – see Gottfredson’s rejection of Senate vote to get union support for constiution.) For nomenclature, faculty see themselves as the heart of the university. The faculty are dealing with the university administration – not The University. Nomenclature is not a game stopper, but it’s symptomatic of problems in your approach.

Librarian enters and says there are so many people it’s a fire code violation. She sends us to Room 101. Rudnick says this not consistent with ground rules, but OK.

101 is a great room, Senate meeting room. The faculty march in and fill it up. Very comfy:

But Rudnick is out in the hall telling Mauer “I am not going to bargain in a classroom. This is not acceptable. There are rules!” Say, where are the administration’s supporters?

Cecil calls a caucus: Mauer tells faculty what Rudnick said. Faculty member says “So, she wants us to take this outside?” Mauer gives him a stern look, tells us there will be decorum, goes back out in the hall to work his magic on Rudnick.

Are the admins going to use a big show of faculty support for the union to close down bargaining? That’s not what’s recommended in Frohnmayer’s “Negotiating for Dummies” guide:

Mauer comes back in, after a frank and open discussion with Rudnick. He told her the faculty came to see bargaining. (And practice for a strike?) A junior faculty member asks why Rudnick yelled at him when he tried to help move chairs. Says he’s never seen that sort of nasty intimidation. I’m guessing it’s his first session with Rudnick.

10:07: Rudnick and her dispirited looking junior admins file back in. “We need power. Where are the outlets?”

Mauer: “Now you understand the problem of having to switch classroom in the middle of a session”.

Mauer:

3) We have counter-proposals for all the economic proposals. You’ve said repeatedly that you’ve already spent the faculty’s money. We’ve made some compromises, here they are.

Art 20: Salary: (See spreadsheet above for details.)

New proposal cuts promotion raises from 10% to 8%. Keeps 3% pool for NTTF floors – unacceptable that a full time university instructor would make less than $36K.

Rudnick says “I’m chuckling about you saying you’d be happy for us to pay you more.” A $300 an hour lawyer without a clue. The crowd is stone cold silent.

Mauer: I’d now like to give you the rest of our economic proposals and then have discussion. Rudnick: OK.

Art 21: Fringe Benefits:

Mauer: We’ve dropped the child care benefits in an effort to reach an agreement. Rudnick: So we’re in agreement except for the part where you call us “The University of Nike Administration” instead of the “The University”. Mauer: Yup.

Art 22: Health Insurance:

Mauer: We’ve dropped request for a $1M fund to help get benefits for part-timers. We dropped this in order to focus on salary issues.

About 100 faculty in the room. No admin supporters are noticeable. Blandy and Gleason still haven’t spoken.

Art 23: Retirement Benefits:

Mauer: Nothing new here, we can’t do much about PERS. We are concerned about threats that UO might drop the 6% pickup. Other bargaining agreements specify that if this happens employees will be made whole. We won’t agree to less of a commitment from UO, unless you can give a coherent explanation for why we should.

Rudnick: That’s it? I’ll respond. For the 6%, admin would agree to shift it to salary if possible. But if legislation prohibits the pickup and takes money away from UO (come on, how much money does the state give us now?) we can’t agree to make you whole. We want you peons to face the risk, rather than have the university bear it, for example by perhaps having to cut Jim Bean’s sinecure, or cut back on athletic subsidies. That would be too much for JH to bear.

Mauer patiently explains optimal risk-sharing theory to Rudnick. Blandy looks interested, Gleason has his head down, reading UO Matters. Rudnick doesn’t understand risk-sharing. (There are two possible states of the world …).

Cecil starts running circles around Rudnick, giggles from the crowd. So why can other Oregon universities manage to make this commitment to their faculty, but not UO?

Rudnick starts trotting out $8M cost figure. That’s less than 1% of the UO budget.

Gleason speaks: It’s not like we’re going to put this money in our pocket! Sure Tim. What’s Bean getting paid? And the beamer? How much has the admin wasted on Bend and now Portland? How much in pursuit of their other pet projects? Athletic subsidies? Paying the Matt Court land bonds…

Green and Rudnick have a productive conversation. Turns out the language does not apply to ORP people – got to check that out closely.

Rudnick’s basic argument is that individual faculty are better prepared to bear the risk of having to pay the pickup cost than UO, currently sitting on ~$150M in reserves. It’s a stupid argument, but it’s hers and she just loves repeating it. Which is really dumb, because the more she says it, the more people in the room start understanding how wacky it is.

Mauer: We agree this may or may not come to pass. If it does, recall that the health of the University depends on the well-being and satisfaction of the faculty, and of new recruits. Threats to cut benefits are not going to help the university. You keep trotting out retirement benefits as a recruiting tool. Now you’re going to tell prospective hires they may lose 6% and you have no plan to make it up? (You’re trying to destroy the university, in order to save the administration.)

Rudnick: Budgets are tight. We could learn how to do better with what we’ve got, starting with optimal risk-sharing, but we’re too stubborn to listen to you on how to do it better, so I’ll just repeat my usual blather. Which she does. The crowd breaks out laughing.

Meanwhile, get your University of Nike T-shirt here:

Now she’s off on the university’s tight future budget. The projections for which she won’t share with the faculty. Shameless. “Tim Clevenger’s new job is not new, it’s part of an effort to reduce administrative costs, and those are substantial!” No kidding. I couldn’t make that one up.
Art 24, Leaves:

Cecil: We’re trying to codify what you’ve told us is current practice. People under 0.5 FTE don’t get sick time, but they don’t typically get docked for missing class for legitimate illness, or have to pay for a substitute, so long as they make it up.
Cecil: Paid 6 weeks parental leave: Suppose 1 parent works at UO and the other at another firm. Both could take family leave. We want to make sure they can do the same if both work at UO. Rudnick: OK.
Some back and forth on faculty on grants getting vacation time. Blandy keeps his mouth shut. Rudnick says she’ll go back to her handlers and find out what’s up.
Art 31: Release time for union officer and negotiating team.
Mauer: We’ve cut the number of releases UO grants to faculty for union work to 2.5, plus 2 more for bargaining. But, we insist we need the right to buy additional time from the university on the same terms as the university gives releases for other administrative work. We want a union that’s run by the faculty, not paid staff, this will help us do that. 

Rudnick: Would UO get to have input, in case releases put a burden on one department? Mauer: Sure, we want to do this cooperatively. Bramhall: Course buyouts happen all the time, let the union do it they way department’s typically do it. Sometimes % of salary, sometimes replacement cost of an adjunct, etc. Gleason: Prices would be negotiated case by case? Cecil: Yeah, if there’s no set rate. We could set a rate, if that’s easier for you. 
Blandy: Release time usually requires Dean approval. Cecil – sounds reasonable, lets work it out. Rudnick: OK.
Big change in the level of cooperation from the admins here – good sign.
Art 32, Sabbatical:

60% for full year, 75% for two quarters, 100% for one. (Change from current 80%).
Cecil: Caucus break? Rudnick: We’ll be back on these on Tuesday. I was told by Scott Coltrane to tell you that we appreciate your significant movement on this proposals. We appreciate it. So, there you are.
AEI issues:

Mauer: Some upheaval at AEI, raises concerns that if these are not addressed it may disrupt the bargaining process. Some refusals by the admin to explain what’s going on. We’re proposing substantial changes in use of adjuncts and NTTFs. Once we have a contract, we expect it will include stronger definitions of adjunct and career. People who are currently adjuncts will move to career. At AEI, some current adjuncts are now being told it’s up or out. Aside from the legal problems with what’s happening, it’s disruptive. Related problems with reducing contracts from 9 to 3 months, and the date to report for work has been changed. Finally, there are rumors about contracting out the entire operation. This would substantially affect what we need to address at the table.
Rudnick: No plan to disband AEI. Some thoughts about looking at tuition structure. Regarding the reporting change, they are being paid and they have to be available for training and meetings. It may be a chance in that no one has ever done it before. As for contracts, it remains that the AEI contract will not be up or out. They are creating 15 career positions, trying to move adjuncts into them. For the specific cases you mentioned on the phone, the woman will get a contract for fall. For the man, they can apply for the career position. We will sit down with them at $300 an hour and make sure they handle the transition to career positions better, since they seem to have some issues.
Mauer: Thanks, we appreciate it. Rudnick: We will also figure out contract terms. 
Lunch break, back at 1:15. They’re back:

Mauer: We’ve made a substantial move on the economics, we wanted to send a clear message and we expect reciprocation. Rudnick: I’ll meet with Gottfredson and Geller and Moffitt tomorrow morning, and we’ll get something done.
Olson: We’ve heard from the faculty, the perception, especially after the Football Palace, is that the university needs to show that its main priority is not athletics. (The athletic subsidies are enough for about 2/3 of the diff in raises. And lets not even talk about what the perception is for parents of potential University of Nike students in the state, or the rest of the country, thanks to Craig Pintens and the NY Times!)
Rudnick: It’s unfortunate that you have that perception and we wish you would stop reinforcing it. It’s too bad, but it’s your fault. The facts show otherwise. (She’s incorrigible – and so easy to set off.)
Appeals for promotion and tenure: Gleason speaks, Rudnick shuts him up, he looks pissed. 
Some stuff about what happens if new stuff comes to light during appeal – book gets accepted, etc.
Cecil: Under current law if denied tenure you can pursue a grievance and a civil case. You want faculty to pick one or the other? Rudnick: Yes.
More back and forth on details of tenure denial grievance process.
Art 49: Acceptable use of UO information assets. Admin counter.

See the live blog from XXVII: They Own Us for background. The synopsis:

In their Art 49, the admins assert ownership of all information stored by faculty on UO info systems. The old policy? The state may or may not have a property interest in information stored on University systems. Mere physical presence of information on a University electronic information system is not sufficient to conclusively establish the ownership and control of that information, just as physical presence of a paper document in a faculty member’s desk or filing cabinet does not establish an irrefutable presumption that the document is owned or controlled by the University.

Rudnick: Gleason found a typo on line one, good boy. We are trying to fix some of the more egregious claims in our previous proposal.

But, they still claim UO owns everything you store on a UO computer or network unless otherwise expressly stated in the article, and they can take away internet access if you misuse it. Crowd breaks out laughing.

Cecil: You’re insane, but if you want to claim the right to do this, it’s discipline, it’s grievable, and we’re going to want to see what UO administrators do with their computers too, to argue it’s not disparate treatment.

Rudnick: Oh.

Green: You’re serious about claiming you own family pictures and MP3’s I store on my UO computer? Rudnick: Yes. You own them too. (WTF?) We asked Geller about the practicality of this – carry two computers with me. Rudnick: That’s why I carry an iPad.

Seriously? She’s using her experiences at a law firm where things are subject to discovery to tell faculty at a university what to do?

Davidson: I understand that UO has a reason to access what’s on a computer for legal reasons – but why insist on ownership?

Rudnick: Some of that will have to be addressed in the Intellectual Property article. But the default is it belongs to UO.

Remember, at the moment UO has no written policy or procedures regarding who in the administration can read your emails or your files or for what purposes.

Gleason: What if I create on my UO computer but store on the cloud? I read this to say it’s mine.

Rudnick: Hold that thought.

Cecil: Suppose I post an anonymous comment on UO Matters? There’s a long tradition on the constructive use of anonymity for public comments. (Yup, back to at least Silence Dogood, a.k.a. Ben Franklin.

Rudnick: OK, come back with better language.

Rudnick: Even what you do at home on your own computer is a public record by Oregon law if it is related to you work at UO.

Mauer: Is complaining about work “work related”? Rudnick: No.

Rudnick: Work related stuff is public records and you don’t own them. (Really? She’s confused. You can own them but they can still be subject to disclosure and vice versa.

Cecil on it: Why can’t faculty have an expectation of privacy? Rudnick: A bunch of reasons. Work of the university, monitor university discipline, etc.

Cecil: Why not a rule saying you have some expectation of privacy – e.g. prior notification. Rudnick: We’d agree to notification after the fact. We are trying to be very clear: The default is that we own it.

Cecil: Suppose I own it and store it on computer – e.g. class notes. We’re going to propose some exceptions.

Gleason: Your class notes are a public record. Rudnick: Maybe not Tim.

Bramhall: So, if I do personal stuff on a personal computer hooked up to a UO network, I do have an expectation of privacy? Rudnick: Yes.

Davidson: Would you be open to limiting searches to cases where there’s a reasonable suspicion or public records? Seems unreasonable for there to be *no* expectation of privacy.

(I wonder if this all applies to students and their email too?)

Section 11: No using UO computers or networks to sell University of Nike t-shirts.

Rudnick appears to have second thoughts on all this: Maybe we should take a bunch of this out, and just reference the law? 

Moving on to promotions.

Rudnick making some concessions. Blandy still hasn’t spoken, but does nod occasionally. All this sounds good for the AEI folks.

Quick break, come back for IP.

Art 51, Intellectual Property, union counter.

Rudnick: If we pay you to think, why do you think that your thoughts belong to you, not your employer? (Uh, check the work-product stuff for lawyers and their clients, Sharon.)

Cecil: So, if we faculty are paid to teach students, does the university then own the students? Or just their brains?

Pratt: Idea is founded in academic freedom, and the idea that the business of the university is to help faculty in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, not to control that knowledge.

Rudnick: We own you and what you do. We get to profit from it, not you. You’re talking about academic freedom, not intellectual property.

Gleason: I’ve actually done my homework this time and read the AAUP stuff. We hire in the sciences, invest $1M in startup. Your proposal will mean we have to write a separate agreement for each such hire. You’re right, our proposal is draconian in the opposite direction. So, we need a compromise that’s workable.

Rudnick is so used to Gleason not making sense she even interrupts when he does.

Cecil: This language is from another university contract – they seem OK with it. Why not UO?

Rudnick: Sec 6 says it’s up to the BU member to disclose.

Olson: This comes from the standard Dept of Commerce deal, required by patent law for things developed by federal funds.

Rudnick: Sec 6 does not give ownership, just requires disclosure. But you want faculty to ave ownership.

Cecil: Maybe you should work on better language.

Olson: Which law do you think this is consistent with?

Rudnick: I don’t think it’s useful to talk about the law. My approach is more pragmatic, lets make a deal.

Mauer: I get it that you think it’s consistent with the law, Sharon. So are other ownership arrangements. So, what law are you talking about?

Rudnick: We can agree to very different ownership rights.

Olson: Look at the Stanford case, where the SCOTUS said university did not own IP, but could work out arrangements with university. UO currently does this well. Why do you want to mess this up?

Mauer: How much money is involved? Rudnick. No. But we’re worried about owning on-line courses, don’t want faculty to take them somewhere else.

Cecil is all over Rudnick on this.

My thought: We are going to end up with different rules for faculty in the bargaining unit and out of the unit. And since people move in and out, it’s going to be a mess.

Gleason: If I was hired by a corporation to do work, they’d own it. The university is just like that corporation. …. He’s slowing down, realizing this isn’t going in a good direction.

Pratt tries to make it clear to Gleason that universities have a slightly different social mission than corporations do.

Gleason: I don’t get the connection between academic freedom and intellectual propoerty.

Cecil: As technology progresses and the amount of money at stake increases, so does the importance of this. We’ve got competing interests, need to make a compromise.

Rudnick: I agree, let’s ignore the law which is very unsettled, and cut a deal.

Cecil: University currently shares 50/50 – why do you want to change it? We need more explanation – maybe we should get Randy in the room?

Rudnick: We spent the morning on economics, we’re going to cut a deal. But in exchange the university wants the money from your IP. So, we’re frustrated with you.

Almost 4:20, they’ll be back Tu at 10AM with a counter on raises. Be there.

Students propose higher tuition, faculty raises

6/10/2013, at the University of Washington:

Students on the advisory committee, along with student-government leaders, said if lawmakers won’t give more state dollars to higher education, students would support a 3 percent tuition increase for in-state undergraduates — or about $322 — in 2013-14, and another 3 percent increase the next year. Total tuition and fees are currently about $12,400.   

A tuition increase of 3 percent could pay for a 2 percent raise for faculty and staff in the next school year and a second 2 percent the following year.   

Administrators affirmed the importance of the faculty salary issue. “Our No. 1 concern is compensation. After four years, we really are at the risk of losing some talented people,” said UW budget director Paul Jenny.  

UW administrators admit that low pay is a problem for retention. Here at UO, VPAA Doug Blandy regularly denies that faculty are leaving UO over low pay, despite the fact that a full professor at UW is paid about 12% more than at UO. UO pay actually fell last year for assistant and associate professors. More data here.

Moffitt piles on more reserves, still not enough for raises.

5/19/13: From http://ous.edu/state_board/meeting/dockets, the March 31 Quarterly Management Report. Free UO Matters coffee cup to UO Controller Kelly Wolf if he will explain the extra $99M in income that popped up this year. Anyway, it looks like reserves were up again last quarter.

In March Moffitt walked out on the faculty bargaining team when they asked her about UO’s reserves, 15.8% at the time. She stalled and came back a few weeks later, saying that was if anything too low – even though OUS’s recommended upper limit is 15%. For a comparison, OSU’s reserves are 8.4%. That means UO has about $63M more than OSU squirreled away for a rainy day.

I’ve met OSU’s former VPFA Mark McCambridge, who just retired. He struck me as a fairly prudent fellow. (And, in contrast to Moffitt, a strong believer in transparency.) Yet Moffitt says UO can’t can’t afford an extra $12M to fund the difference between the admin and union raises proposals? Hmm.

2012:
http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/state_board/meeting/dockets/ddoc120511-FA.pdf

The good news: When UO has its own board, VPFA Moffitt will no longer have to make excuses to the state. The bad news: When UO has its own board there will be no way for the faculty to find out what’s going on with the UO budget, except with public records requests which Moffitt will respond to like this:

Union Bargaining XIV: Gottfredson’s response is to stall

Venue: Room 122 Knight Library, 8AM, Thursday 3/21/2013.

Postscript:

Prologue: (Comparator gaps by dept here, what to cut here, Moffitt’s secret budget here.)

You might have thought Michael Gottfredson would have asked Kitzhaber for authority to deal with UO’s faculty pay problem, before he agreed to take the UO president’s job. But maybe he was more concerned about pinning down his own $540K salary. For comparison, the Chancellor of UCLA gets $425K, after 6 years in the job.

In Sept 2011, Lariviere wrote to OUS, in defense of his plan to get UO salaries to our comparators, despite the state salary freeze in place at the time:

Read it all here, lots of stuff about NTTF raises too. The salary freeze has been history for 2 years, Pernsteiner leaves in 11 days. PSU and OSU faculty have had raises, so have UO’s OAs, and many central administrators. On Tuesday, in Session XIII, the union proposed a realistic, comprehensive salary package with both merit and external equity comments, along the lines of the 2011 proposal from the administration – which was supposed to have been fully implemented by 2013-14.

But President Gottfredson’s administrative bargaining team responded to the union’s proposal to at least make a bit of progress on this by 2015-16 with sarcasm and ridicule. VPFA Jamie Moffitt said that despite having reserves above the OUS *maximum* UO could not afford these raises – but she won’t show her budget forecasts. Doug Blandy denied that faculty were leaving over salaries. Rudnick suggested that the AAU peer group comparisons were now irrelevant, and that UO couldn’t afford both wi-fi and competitive faculty pay, and that faculty would need to pick one or the other.
Cast: Blandy and Slim and helper lawyers, no Gleason, no Altmann.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what people said, were thinking, or of their treppenwitz. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

Liveblog:

Act I:

Rudnick: Trying to drag this out in hopes union members will get nervous about Beangram on raises. Admin can’t assess raise proposal without total compensation package (inclusive of leaves, sabbaticals, etc). The take it or leave it approach doesn’t work for Rudnick after all? We met yesterday about your salary proposals but we don’t have a response. Moffitt is “costing them out” and comparing to her secret budget projections. Here’s hoping she’s also going through the list of admin bloat.

Admin response to Art 6: Dues:

Rudnick: blah, blah. Gleason walks in, looking pissed about something, as usual.

Art 18: Union proposal on Discipline and Termination.

Gleason perks up. This has new relevance giving the Olmsted incident last week. Mauer drops an Arlo reference. Chuckles from the faculty team and the group W bench. Admins apparently are not fans. Mauer goes through their list step by step, explains problems, explains that they have not clarified previous questions as they promised, explains what union does accept, explains objections. Hits them on the petty stuff they inserted in the contract even though it’s already covered under law. Union does not propose docking admin pay for bowl game junkets.

Rudnick: Sec 9: Intended to treat unapproved leave as “voluntary resignation”. Not discipline. Mauer: Arbitrator would normally say that the employer had an obligation to investigate the circumstances. Here? Rudnick: Putting that aside, If the terms of the section were complied with, we would not want an arbitrator to be able to arbitrate – they’ve abandoned their job. Mauer: Some anthropologist is incommunicado in the field. You fire them. No grievance or arbitration where they could explain the circumstances? Rudnick: Your sec 9 is unclear. Mauer: Agreed, we withdraw this section for now.

Brief break, admins chatting with Doxsee about what a shame it is that the faculty has made this process so adversarial, given how well-managed the university has been. To them, we’re a bunch of ingrates.

Rudnick: What actions away from work would be grounds for discipline? Your section seems narrow. Suppose a professor was engaged in visiting pornography websites not adult pornography ones like the Nu Bay Porn Site but instead child pornography websites, but not involving a university student, and during the summer. Mauer: There are volumes of arbitration allowing that actions outside the workplace would be grounds for discipline. Rudnick: But your language would not seem to allow that discipline. You limit just cause in the contract. Mauer: Typical contract language just says “just cause and progressive discipline” because there’s so much labor law explaining the details. You want to add more specifics.

Mostly this is about the administration trying to make the faculty look bad, and trying to paint the administration as the guardians needed to protect the students and community from the crazy professors.

Rudnick: OK, maybe this list of things was not required, I’m coming around to your view, after charging you $10K to write this crap, and arguing about it for weeks. Now I’ll go charge you to cut and paste the language from your proposal.

FWIW, the administration now admits that there are emails between their bargaining team members about child porn:

The University of Oregon has received your 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 [2/08/2013]”, on 02/08/2013, attached. The office has at least some documents responsive to your request. By this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests. The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $879.75.

Tim Gleason was the first to bring this up, at a bargaining meeting back in December. I assume these emails are about how to use this paedophilia ploy to attempt to embarrass the faculty. But I don’t think I’m going to pay them $879.75 to see the sordid details, especially since Rudnick now seems happy to drop the whole thing.

Art 21. Fringe benefits: Union proposal.

Mauer
: Vouchers for child care – some tax advantage to employees and UO from this. $625 per term if over 0.5FTE, and reimbursement for special events held at night. Gleason: You want the current TRP or a TRP? Could we change it? Mauer: Through negotiations. Rudnick: What would this cost? Mauer: We don’t know, we will estimate.

My back of the envelope: about half what we give JH for their bowl game junkets. Here’s Lorraine Davis’s deal – UO pays for her spouse and kids to go to Pasadena:

Art 25. Termination of TTF not for cause. Union proposal.

Mauer: Standard AAUP stuff on how universities can terminate tenured faculty only after showing financial exigency, etc. Bean gets a much better deal as terminated provost – full year’s provost’s pay.

Art 39: Notification. Boilerplate.

Art 42: Criminal background checks:

Currently not required by UO policy for all faculty. Rudnick thinks they are. Gleason thinks it should be. Confusion reigns. Rudnick will check.

Rudnick wants the university to be able to decide for itself what crimes affect job performance. She wants all criminal convictions reported to the provost – otherwise the university would never know and be able to make it’s own decision. Seems reasonable – this would be convictions, not just arrests or charges. Gleason just can’t keep quiet – what kind of criminal activity is not relevant to being a public employee? Mauer: Suppose a physics professor got convicted of bigamy… Why is no one talking about getting busted for pot? Davidson: Some things are criminal, very embarrassing to have to tell your supervisor, but totally unrelated to your work as a professor.

I’ve got a proposal: Jamie Moffitt agrees to share the university’s financial info with the faculty, and I’ll tell interim Provost Bean all about my criminal history as a transvestite prostitute in Salt Lake City or my brief time making porn for websites like shemalehd sex.

Art 43: Drugs and Alcohol, union counterproposal

Mauer: We think this addresses your concerns. (To me this seems like another article where the administration is just trying to use the contract language as a chance to enumerate all the bad and sad things that can happen to human beings, with the faculty as examples, to try and show how difficult a job the administration has managing such a troublesome lot of cantankerous drunks and stoners). Rudnick starts picking at it. Gleason’s tell: he rubs his fingers together whenever Rudnick says “discipline”.

Break

Mauer: We will send you all our economic proposals ASAP so you can get Moffitt to do her secret costing analysis and give us the money before it all gets spent on your legal fees, guns, and baseball subsidies.

Rudnick: We will not have a response to your raise proposal by next session either, because our people are on vacation.

Next session Tuesday, April 2, same room. Meeting closes with Mauer leading the faculty in song, as Rudnick et al slink out in discouragement:

3.5% update, UO pay still at bottom of AAU

3.5% 10/25/2012 update: The AAUO faculty union has posted an update on the bargaining process, here. Interestingly, the post includes this statement:

In light of the misconception that the certification of our union has delayed or prevented the implementation of raises, our bargaining team also formally requested that the administration raise faculty salaries by 3.5% for this academic year, while reserving our right to negotiate other components of salary.

Gottfredson has only one rational response to this:

“I’ll see you that 3.5%, and raise you another 3.5%. Now let’s sit down and talk about merit, and getting departments up to their AAU comparators.”

The post also lists the members of the AAUO bargaining team. Full partial disclosure: One or more members of the UO Matters editorial team will be participating in the bargaining process, for one side or the other, or perhaps both: Bean and Geller have not yet disclosed who will join them at the table – though they know my price.

UO pay still at bottom of AAU 10/25/2012:

University “peers” in bold)
Full 
Associatee
Assistantt
Harvard University $198,400 $120,900 $109,800
Columbia University $197,800 $125,000 $99,000
University of Chicago $197,800 $114,100 $102,600
Stanford University $195,400 $131,200 $109,800
Princeton University $193,800 $123,700 $94,200
New York University $182,400 $106,100 $99,700
University of Pennsylvania $181,600 $117,800 $112,300
Yale University $180,400 $108,600 $89,700
Duke University $175,300 $114,500 $96,000
California Institute of Technology $172,800 $121,300 $111,300
Washington University in St Louis $172,400 $100,200 $96,800
Northwestern University $172,100 $110,200 $98,900
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $171,800 $120,300 $102,800
University of California, Los Angeles $162,600 $107,400 $87,400
Cornell University – Endowed Colleges $161,800 $113,000 $97,000
Rice University $159,500 $106,000 $86,600
Vanderbilt University $158,300 $98,600 $76,500
Brown University $156,700 $99,300 $82,300
University of Southern California $155,900 $105,300 $93,300
University of California, Berkeley $154,000 $104,600 $92,300
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor $148,800 $98,200 $85,800
Rutgers University, New Brunswick $145,000 $98,400 $78,600
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill $144,000 $94,600 $80,500
Carnegie Mellon University $142,000 $98,900 $101,200
University of Virginia $141,600 $95,000 $80,300
Georgia Institute of Technology $141,300 $94,600 $86,800
University of California, San Diego $140,700 $90,900 $87,000
University of Texas, Austin $140,700 $89,900 $83,900
State New York Stony Brook $140,500 $99,500 $78,100
Tulane University $140,200 $86,600 $71,500
University of California, Santa Barbara $138,600 $85,400 $78,500
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign $137,200 $86,500 $83,600
University of California, Irvine $137,000 $89,800 $80,700
University of Maryland, College Park $136,300 $95,700 $83,900
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh $135,800 $90,000 $75,000
State University of New York Buffalo $135,400 $93,100 $77,400
Ohio State University $134,200 $89,300 $81,500
University of Rochester $133,800 $97,200 $93,500
Pennsylvania State University, University Park $132,100 $89,200 $76,100
Case Western Reserve University $131,200 $85,800 $79,200
Brandeis University $130,000 $90,500 $84,400
University of Iowa $130,000 $86,400 $74,100
University of California, Davis $129,400 $90,600 $81,300
Michigan State University $128,600 $89,200 $69,500
Indiana University, Bloomington $128,400 $87,000 $77,400
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities $125,700 $86,000 $79,100
University of Colorado, Boulder $125,500 $90,300 $77,500
Purdue University $125,100 $87,100 $79,100
University of Washington, Seattle $122,700 $88,300 $79,300
University of Florida $121,700 $80,100 $68,900
Texas A&M University, College Station $120,000 $83,100 $72,800
University of Arizona $119,900 $81,800 $70,800
University of Kansas $116,100 $78,800 $69,200
Iowa State University $115,900 $83,500 $75,100
University of Wisconsin, Madison $114,700 $87,400 $75,900
University of Missouri, Columbia $113,900 $75,900 $61,700
University of Oregon $112,300 $79,600 $74,000
AAU Average $146,616 $97,233 $85,114
Average of 8 UO   “peers” $134,950 $90,650 $79,175
UO as % of average 77% 82% 87%
UO as % of peer average 83% 88% 93%
$ gap between UO and peers ($22,650) ($11,050) ($5,175)

This is 2011-12 data from the AAUP. The Lariviere plan was to raise average UO salaries to our peer average by department and rank. So this gives you a rough idea of what Gottfredson’s refusal to grant raises now is costing you. I’ll have a better breakdown if UO ever gives me the correct data by department. NTTF data is also coming soon.

Note: Johns Hopkins and Duke did not report. Medical schools are excluded. Not sure about Law. UO’s self-identified peers are in bold. 10/25/2012.

And what does UO get from its faculty, in return for this shoddy pay? 2 years ago we posted this, from the NRC rankings, in a form that even an interim provost could understand:

http://uomatters.com/2010/09/idiots-guide-to-nrc-rankings.html

9/29/2010: IR has posted a spreadsheet of UO’s NRC rankings here. If you use the numerical ratings alone (i.e. ignore the reputational survey) and use the midpoint of their confidence range, then divide by the number of programs evaluated in that discipline, you get a crude percentile rank. Here’s that data for UO. So our Psych department is doing the best of all UO departments, at 16%. 11 of our 21 programs are at or above the 50th percentile in their field. Not bad for a university that pays its full professors 84% 83% of the average, and which spends 63% 63.25% of the average on research.

Note that the NRC only bothers to evaluate a subset of the best PhD granting programs, and these percentiles are relative to that subset, so showing up on the list at all is not too shabby an accomplishment.

Percentile Department
16% Psychology
24% Geography
26% Anthropology
26% Biology
36% Mathematics
36% Geological Sciences
37% History
38% Physics
43% Comparative Literature
44% Economics
50% Political Science
57% Communication and Society
57% Chemistry
64% Philosophy
65% Linguistics
71% Music
75% English
77% Computer and Information Sciences
77% Human Physiology
91% Theatre Arts
94% Sociology

UO can’t give raises because of the union?

10/12/2012: I’ve heard many reports of recent statements by Bean and Gottfredson that they can’t pay us the round 2 and 3 Lariviere raises because of the union. At the Head’s retreat, for example. Please post comments or email me about other stuff you’ve heard from admins on this, with what was said, by whom, and when. The more specific the better.

The admin’s FAQ on the recent OA raises says:

  • Q:  Why aren’t you providing increases to faculty as well?
  • A:  Our faculty recently unionized.  Most adjustments to faculty salaries will need to be negotiated with the union as part of our initial collectively bargained contract.

On the other hand UO has the money set aside – for TTF and NTTF – and it’s hard to see how Kitzhaber can let the coaches get 21%+ and then say no to the professors. And the Johnson Hall dwellers are apparently not saying the problem is the money or the Gov – they’re saying it’s unionization.

Is there a legal prohibition against giving raises without a contract, now that we’ve gone union? No.

Labor law does say that, because of the union vote, faculty now have the right to ask the union to file a grievance against the administration for changes in the terms of employment – which would include a raise. I’m no psychology professor, but I don’t think people file grievances about getting raises often enough to even get a note in the DSM.

If there was a pre-existing agreement to give raises, does UO have to follow through with it now that we’ve got a union? Maybe.

If UO had made a pre-existing commitment to raise faculty pay before the union vote, then not following through could trigger an ERB grievance. Was there a commitment? Well, for starters there’s this email from Interim Provost Bean, sent out a few months after he’d tried to convince us all to take furloughs:

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

The ERB is not going to take Bean’s word any more seriously than we do, but there’s more substantive evidence that faculty had reason to expect raises. I’ve got a public records request in for the spreadsheet showing what CAS had planned for rounds 2 and 3 of the Lariviere raises, for each TTF, by name. More than a month, and CAS Dean Scott Coltrane is still refusing to turn it over. If you’ve got a copy please send it along. Thanks!

I’m also trying to get more information on who is advising Gottfredson on labor law – I hope he knows better than to rely on Randy by now. My guess is that it’s Sharon Rudnick of Geller’s favorite firm, Harrang, Long, Gary and Rudnick. I’ve made a public records request, but Dave Hubin’s office wants to charge me $70 for the contracts – and it will be a lot more for the invoices and memos. You know where this is going – pony up, comrades.

UO raises in news

9/16/2011: Bill Graves of the Oregonian on the UO raises:

The report explains the UO jumped at the chance earlier this year to raise salaries and protect quality at a time when state support keeps shrinking. The university was careful to avoid merit or across-the-board pay increases, said Russ Tomlin,  senior vice provost for academic affairs.

“We were expressly permitted to do promotion and retention and equity increases,” he said. “We focused most of our energy on equity increases, and that is where we were aggressive and where the concerns arose.”

The university, for example, raised the salary for a tenured mathematics professor from $77,000 to $84,000.

In a letter to Pernsteiner accompanying the report, Lariviere writes, “It is imperative, in order to retain the quality faculty and staff that makes this place special, that we continue to take all necessary and allowable actions to make progress on faculty and staff salaries.”

Hey – why no link to the report in the story? The RG has one here. I’m biased, but it is pretty convincing, except when they get to the raises for top level administrators. Frances Dyke announced her retirement and *then* was given an “equity raise” to $223,118. What does that have to do with retention – giving a raise to someone you want to leave, and who is leaving, thank god.

The letter references a diversity person leaving for more pay. In fact, 3 have left recently. VP for diversity Martinez was forced out. Neither of the other two were top administrators – far from it. One was recently given a raise to $39,400. The other was paid $51,750 and did not get a raise this round. These are strange examples to trot out when explaining why we gave raises to administrators making more than $200,000, with no outside offers – and frankly, little prospect of getting them at this point in their careers.

But Pernsteiner, having recently received a *retroactive* raise himself and on very thin ice with the Governor is not going to push this any farther.

Faculty Salaries

9/7/2011: Seems like a good time to repost the data on UO faculty salaries produced by Sarah Douglas and Marie Vitulli for UO’s AAU chapter:

Full professor salary was at 81% of peers, associates at 86%, assistants at 94%. My guess is that with the June 2011 raises full professors are now at 86%, associates at 90%, assistants at 93%. With benefits? Who knows.

Faculty raises were a priority for Lariviere from day 1, when the June 2009 story came out that UO professor salaries were the lowest in the AAU – below Missouri by some 10%.

UO Administrators? Last time I looked, in 2009, they were typically paid 100% of the median for 4 year public research schools. The Chronicle has not updated it’s data on this since 2008-09.

The Texas sky is not falling

8/26/2011: That’s the takeway from Insidehighered‘s report on faculty productivity steps pushed by Governor Perry. They also have short takes today on the College Board head’s fat salary and Utah canceling classes for a football game. And a story about the Youngstown faculty union calling off a strike. The UO faculty union people have been quiet lately, any news on if they still plan to try a card check this fall?

And a Miami sports reporter asks the obvious question about the NCAA infractions committee:

The NCAA plays the bully in taking on the kids. Why doesn’t it take on
the adults who allowed Nevin Shapiro to run around their athletic
department?

Money.

UC gives profs and staff raises – not admins

8/18/2011: From the LAT:

Under the plan, all faculty with good performance reviews will receive 3% raises this year, and nonacademic staff, who have received no increases since 2007, could be in line for larger raises.

About 78,000 UC employees will be eligible under the plan, officials said. But nearly 400 employees — senior administrators and non-teaching staffers who earn more than $200,000 a year — will not be included.

Frohnmayer’s emeritus status revoked

5/8/2011: In 2009 OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner, PhD appointed Dave Frohnmayer as UO President Emeritus for Life, with this sweetheart contract.

Now it looks like the UO Senate is going to take that title away from him:

It’s a tough world: last summer Russ Tomlin cut Frohnmayer’s pay to $201,208 FTE – making him UO’s highest paid professor. Then Russ wrote Dave 2 special retroactive summer contracts, worth $35,000 or so. The state auditors are still trying to figure out what work Dave did for that money, since he’s been working at another job at Harrang Long et al since September 2009.

Many people have other objections to this new emeritus policy, which is explained in detail here. My understanding is that it has not yet been approved. But I’m willing to bet that the first thing that gets changed is a special exemption for Frohnmayer – or maybe they’ll just claim he’s grandfathered in.

This policy takes away a lot of the discretion about awarding emeritus status. I think that’s good – why should this be a perk that UO can use as a threat to stifle professors, as they did with Jean Stockard?

The requirement for 5 years as full has its pluses and minuses. On balance I think it’s reasonable unless the department votes for an exception.

I also question this part, which gives retired faculty in the TRP program voting rights. Personally, I don’t think short-timers should have a vote in hiring or running their department. Advice, sure. But then let the young turks decide to take it or not:

2. Faculty members who are retired or who hold also emeritus status, including those participating in the UO tenure reduction program, shall retain departmental voting rights during the academic terms they are on the University payroll and are serving on active duty in an instructional or research capacity in that department. A department may choose to extend voting rights to emeriti during those terms when emeriti are not on the University payroll.

faculty productivity measurements

5/7/2011: In the Austin Statesman, via bojack.org. The UT system compiled a data set on faculty productivity, then squelched it, then fired the guy who told the press they’d squelched it. Jack wonders if the recent SOS audit was motivated by questions from an Oregon legislator. Probably, Oregon HB 3118 (now dead) called for something similar.

There’s no reason to freak out about these efforts to put some data out there. I’m no business management professor, but we faculty are UO’s profit center, not its cost center. We are underpaid, we teach way more than our comparators, and we bring in some pretty decent research funding too. The more people know about what we do the better. Professors make money for the university.

The UO administration, on the other hand – well, there’s a reason they make it so difficult to get public records and basic information about where they are spending tax and tuition money. And don’t get me started on OUS.