Comments may be deleted if your h-index is less than 20. Please use a screen name.
- Live-blog Full Board meeting, Tu... (3)
- Publius By comparison to Schill: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/16/why-president-turns-down-bonus Why a President Turns Down a Bonus Decision by leader at Louisville raises question of... – Tuesday
- honest Uncle Bernie In my opinion, Schill has a mixed record, with some notable achievements, but real problems erupting. The improvement in graduation... – Tuesday
- Dog "social justice snowflakes" I wish that guy was in my classes, a student that is actually awake ... – Tuesday
- Live-Blogging: UO Board of Trustees... (11)
- honest Uncle Gangsta How about "UOM: redacted" from now on? – Monday
- uomatters Please avoid making fun of people's names on my blog. I had enough of this in middle school. Bill "Hard... – Monday
- Fishwrapper Let's be fair, the Shelton-Hat plan to get an independent board was predicated on an up-front infusion of a few... – Monday
- Rob from the poor, give to the Schillionaire Where’s the money for the Schillionaire’s big salary boost coming from? By kicking poor students that require financial aid out... – Monday
- Inquiring Minds Given all the hoopla about UO's dire financial situation (past, present, and future) this session seems thin on what the... – Monday
- honest Uncle Bernie They should look at their total enrollment graph, especially for out of state, and think very hard about what they... – Friday
- It's classified In Jamie Moffit's words, though something she probably won't say in this situation... "that's too rich" – Wednesday
- New Year Cat Well, there is that... – Wednesday
- "Issues Management" spokesperson says UO... (12)
- just different Maybe it's just a coincidence that this successful discrimination suit against UO was filed in Portland. Or maybe not. – Monday
- Dog there are about 50 faculty a year that go on TRP so you can calculate if 6% of 50 faculty... – Friday
- uomatters You've got it backwards. (Don't feel bad, Jamie and Brad are just figuring this out too, and I'm not sure... – Friday
- Inquiring Minds Well isn't the TRP super elite 6%, 3-year bonus supposed to move people like this on? Hmmm perhaps that bonus... – Friday
- Louis Can't And we're now $250K poorer and stuck with them. If only our university had competent deans and lawyers who could... – Friday
- Frank Lloyd Wrong It's not at all surprising that their lawyer's statement makes the plaintiffs sound amazing and productive, but in fact these... – Thursday
- uomatters And violate the principle that no Johnson Hall administrator ever makes a mistake. Better to pay them off, then have... – Thursday
- Richard Bohloff Losing a lawsuit would be very inconvenient, yes. – Thursday
- Board uses public listserv to... (2)
- Gov Brown helps Oregon21's Neils... (2)
- Screen Shot 2019-12-02 at 11.13.12... (1)
- eugenenative Contrary’s to the assertions in this letter, neither the reputation nor the economy of the State of Oregon are dependent... – Tuesday
- Screen Shot 2019-12-02 at 11.13.55... (2)
- Provost to step down, Faculty... (1)
- Dog The Provost Game Well Explained https://chroniclevitae.com/news/2020-another-new-provost – Tuesday
- New UC NTTF research faculty... (4)
- thedude So lets compare fund raising relative to raises over that time? My guess is percentages and levels, Gottfriedsen still did... – Tuesday
- uomatters The biggest donation Gottfredson brought in was $10M - for a softball field. And the foundation had to pay him... – Monday
- DTL Hrm.... faculty suffering almost as much as classified?! OMG! – Monday
- thedude Will our union negotiate, or walk away from the table with 1-2 percent annual raises (like last time) that make... – Monday
- Fac Union Pres Sinclair tells... (18)
- Airbnb income partially offsets annoyance... (2)
- Math Prof likens mandatory diversity... (18)
- just different Please get your information about the Seattle curriculum from someplace other than right-wing blogs. Seattle is trying to engage students... – Monday
- just different She's dead wrong and the McCarthy analogy is lazy, inflammatory nonsense. Whether or not you are a card-carrying communist on... – Monday
- uomatters Can you put that in a signed memo and send it to the search committees? Because they are pretty scared... – Sunday
- So, not to rain on your parade here, but what a search advocate actually does is ask you questions. That's... – Sunday
- UO's Board of Trustees is... (2)
- It's classified. It's never as bad as it couldn't be worse. – Monday
- Older »
- Live-blog Full Board meeting, Tu... (3)
- RT @hardsci: And of possible interest: The 1/4 of the bonus that he's apparently keeping, $25,000, is the annual salary of a ful… https://t.co/Ul46Oyywp4, 1 hour ago
- RT @DailyEmerald: In a letter from Governor Brown to IAAF CEO, Jon Ridgeon, Brown detailed “information about plans to maximize publi… https://t.co/6cavBypifI, 10 hours ago
- RT @danbauman77: UNC’s Silent Sam Settlement Was Reached Quickly. The Blowback Might Last Longer. https://t.co/89SDWB9cca, Dec 9
- RT @CFrancisOLeary: UO has disposed of bias ridden "course evaluations" and implemented "student experience surveys" that accentuate th… https://t.co/RnmjO7JvbR, Dec 6
- RT @Tobin_Tweets: Inbox: Two UO professors who sued the UO and former College of Design dean reached a $170K settlement. https://t.co/hkyynAU251, Dec 4
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Dana Altman Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Diversity Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) free speech Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing Lorraine Davis March 8-9 rape allegations Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor Pernsteiner PERS Public Records Public Safety Randy Geller General Counsel Research money Richard Lariviere: UO President Robert Berdahl Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Tim Gleason Track and Field Championships Uncategorized UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- Live-blog Full Board meeting, Tu 12/10/2019: $0.1M for Schill, $1M for Cristobal 12/10/2019
- OSU lobbyist Jock Mills sends out his last report, with info Angela Wilhelms won’t give the UO trustees on capital funding disaster 12/09/2019
- Quid Pro Quo for Gov. Kate Brown for IAAF 2021’s public funds? 12/09/2019
- Nike employees protest Salazar, ask for denaming 12/09/2019
- Live-Blogging: UO Board of Trustees to meet Dec 9 committee meetings 12/09/2019
- Company that sells course evaluations writes report praising them 12/09/2019
- Board uses public listserv to notify public of meeting on new President 12/05/2019
- Vin Lananna reinstated as USATF President and CEO 12/05/2019
- “Issues Management” spokesperson says UO paid professors $170K to avoid inconvenience 12/04/2019
- Great moments in economic consulting report writing 12/03/2019
- Updates on Prof Jennifer Freyd’s pay discrimination lawsuit 12/03/2019
- Provost Patrick Phillips, Absinthe, and Holiday Shopping at the Faculty Club 12/03/2019
- Provost to step down, Faculty Senate to search for replacement 12/03/2019
- Gov Brown helps Oregon21’s Neils De Vos get a visa to collect $40M in public funds 12/02/2019
- New UC NTTF research faculty union approves 1st contract 12/01/2019
- UO’s Board of Trustees is not as bad as UNC’s 12/01/2019
- Airbnb income partially offsets annoyance of Duck home games 11/30/2019
- Melania Trump schools Mike Schill on free speech 11/26/2019
- Can Willie Taggart pull off a Mike Bellotti at Florida State? 11/25/2019
- Math Prof likens mandatory diversity statements to McCarthyist loyalty oaths 11/25/2019
From their union website at http://www.uaosu.org/ Presumably this means they believe they can win a card-check election, and will start soon. Long-time readers may remember that I started out opposed to the UO faculty union, but signed the card once I realized they were going to win, and I’m now the union treasurer. Even the UO administration now agrees -with a few exceptions – that the union has been a good thing for UO.
There is, of course, an anti-union blog, with 35 members, at https://www.osuexcellence.org/new-page/
- No premier research-intensive university in the U.S.—no true aspirational peer of OSU—has a unionized tenure-track faculty. Recently, both the University of Washington and the University of Minnesota worked to successfully defeat unionization of their faculty, for reasons similar to those listed below.
I guess we’re not premier research-intensive aspirational peer for OSU. Most of their anti-union language is cut-pasted from other anti-union blogs. Berdahl and Gottfredson spent $1M or so, mostly tuition money, on anti-union consultants and lawyers to fight the UO union, including this defamatory open letter to the faculty, accusing me of being “anti-university”:
From what I can tell from the emails, the letter came from UO General Counsel Randy Geller, Associate GC Doug Park, Faculty Athletics Representative Tim Gleason, VPAA Barbara Altmann, VPAA Doug Blandy, Consultant Marla Rae, HLGR’s Sharon Rudnick, William F. Gary and Kate Grado, and Michelle Cole of Gallatin Public Affairs – or at least they were in the loop.
I don’t know what OSU is doing in this regard.
My understanding is that this will soon go to the membership for a vote. I vote yes. If you’re not a member yet, the info on joining is here. Bottom line is that faculty will get average 3% raises in Jan 2018 (old contract) and now 2% in Jan 2019, and 2.125% in Jan 2020, variously distributed as ATB, merit, gender equity and external equity. These raises and the continuing promotion raises will mean that UO faculty pay will likely decline relative to peer institutions. The union pushed for additional merit pay but obviously the UO budget is tight. Next time we should call it “excellence pay” – that might get more traction.
The gender equity raise is conditional on UO’s soon to be hired consultant finding something in the pay regressions that no one else has been able to find. Assuming they don’t, that will be distributed as ATB. The external equity raise will go to faculty in departments where pay by rank is 90% below peers, or about 1/3 of the TTF.
As the statement below explains, the agreement for an extension rather than a new round of contentious bargaining (which would have started in January) was a cooperative one between the union and the administration. The UO faculty have suffered from a long series of incompetent and transient administrations. That era is over, and the union has responded appropriately.
UAUO Statement on Tentative Agreement for Contract Extension
Late last week, we were able to reach a tentative agreement with the administration for a two-year extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. We will be holding a ratification vote later this month. The agreement will only be finalized upon approval of a majority of voting members. This email contains a short summary of the agreement, followed by a longer explanation and a link to the tentative agreement. This tentative agreement is not to be confused with the final 3% average raise from our current contract which consists of a 2.25% merit pool and 0.75% across-the-board raise and will take effect on January 01, 2018.
Short summary: We agreed to a raise package for the 2018-19 and 2019-2020 years. This tentative contract extension reflects our desire to sustain salary growth & stability and correct observed inequities, even amid a highly constrained state and university budget context. Our current contract expires on June 30, 2018, but still includes a 3% raise package that goes into effect this coming January 01, 2018. The tentative contract extension builds on UA’s consecutive five-years of salary increases and will provide two additional years of salary raises, which will take effect in January 2019 and January 2020.
1. In the first year (beginning January 2019), the agreement is for a pool of money equal to 2.0% of the total salaries for the tenure-track faculty. The pool will be split between a 1.25% across-the-board raise for all TTF, and a .75% pool of money to address observed salary inequities by protected classes.
2. For the NTTF in the first year, there will be a 2.0% across-the-board raise.
3. In the second year (beginning January 2020), the TTF will have a pool of money equivalent to 2.125% of TTF salaries. This pool will be split between a 1.625% merit pool, and a .5% external equity pool.
4. In the second year, NTTF will have a 2.125% merit pool.
The negotiations with the university over this extension took place throughout this summer. We engaged in a relatively quick and quiet negotiation process with the university because both parties thought that a contract extension made sense in our current unsettled university climate. The state of the university’s budget it still abysmal and the additional pressure from the state about PERS funding has not helped. Many of you may recall the proposed double-digit tuition hikes and the woeful support from the state to cover university operating costs. The failure to find new revenue at the state level threatens higher education with continued pressure to increase tuition, which is something we have stood against. Recall that Oregon sits near the bottom in spending for higher education in the U.S. and in corporate tax receipts. This bind will continue to pose challenges to the UO and public education in Oregon.
Additionally, volatility in US immigration policy (see how nicely we put that?) has lead to deep concerns about the numbers of international students who will attend the university in the next few years. We also wanted to give our new Provost a chance to get a handle on his job before we entered into full-fledged negotiations with the university. The University of Oregon is not the typical research university, we have a strong commitment to shared governance and a deep respect for the work of the NTTF. We wanted to give Provost Banavar time to learn who we are before we bargained over sometimes contentious issues.
We are very aware that there are pressing issues that need to be addressed. Job stability for NTTF, both in length of employment and in assignment, still needs to be improved. Support for faculty with children is woefully lacking. The service that all faculty do is still extremely undervalued. Before we agreed to negotiate an extension, the Provost’s Office pledged to work with us over the next two years on these issues and more. We are putting some faith in the Provost’s Office, but we believe that they are committed to finding solutions to help build a better university.
Details and tentative agreement here.
The current contract expires next summer, so bargaining would normally start in December. Faculty will get 0.75% across the board (ATB) and 2.25% merit pool raises in January 2018. This proposal is for a contract extension and 2% raises in 2019 and again in 2020. These would be part COLA or ATB, and part equity – which is a tough word to define.
During the last bargaining session the administration flip-flopped between raises for internal equity, external equity, and gender/racial equity. At one point they refused to talk about external equity. Then they refused to talk about gender/racial equity. Then they agreed to a working group on gender/racial equity, but not external equity. They’re currently in the process of hiring a consulting firm to study that.
Speaking of which – where are the bids? Three weeks and no reply to this simple public records request?
From: Bill Harbaugh <email@example.com>
Subject: PR request Salary Equity proposals
Date: June 18, 2017 at 10:25:52 PM PDT
To: Lisa Thornton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Ms Thornton –
This is a public records request for a copy of all bids submitted in response to:
RFP to Conduct Salary Equity Study for the University of Oregon Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Ranks,
UO General / Budget Control – 900100
UO Central Budget – 950001
PCS Administration – 431150
I ask for a fee-waiver on the basis of public interest.
Here’s today’s letter from UAUO Pres Michael Dreiling regarding the contract extension:
Possible Collective Bargaining Agreement Extension
As the Spring term was coming to a close, I had a conversation with President Schill about the possibility of extending our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by a year or two. The central idea was that we would come to an agreement about a new raise package for those years and leave the rest of the CBA in place until we could bargain a full Agreement.
I talked this idea over with our Executive Council and we all agreed it made sense to explore this idea with the UO administration. There were several factors that contributed to our thinking, but the main one concerned the unstable and uncertain budgeting future at the UO. We reasoned that locking in positive salary gains now, with no reductions to benefits, was something worth considering.
Dave Cecil and I have met with President Schill and VP Bill Brady twice now and we have the outlines of a proposal. Essentially, we’d be looking at a 2.0% raise in January 2019 and January 2020. In each year, the 2.0% would be divided between a COLA raise for all faculty and an equity raise for faculty who are entitled to one. We are still working out the details with the administration on how best to distribute equity money, but we are insisting on a mix of gender and diversity equity adjustments, adjustments based on our external comparators, and inversion/compression adjustments.
Agreeing to a two-year contract extension would delay bargaining for many needed non-salary improvements to the CBA. This concern weighs on our minds. The EC thought, however, that we will be in a better position to bargain with our new Provost after we have had a chance to build a relationship with him, and he has had a chance to acclimate himself to the university. We are confident that over the course of the next two years, he will learn that our concerns are shared by a great many people at UO, and he will want to work with us to solve them.
There is nothing final about any of our discussions, and I wanted to include you in the conversation as soon as was practicable. I welcome your feedback about this idea. Any agreement we reach with the UO will have to be ratified by the membership, so look for your opportunity to vote. We hope to have a proposal for you to vote on later in the summer.
You must be a member to attend. You can join at the meeting. It’s a union, of course there will be beer.
Spring Membership Meeting
[United Academics] will be holding our spring Membership Meeting April 5 from 5-7pm in Gerlinger Lounge. A pasta dinner will be served at 5pm, and as usual children are welcome.
The agenda for the meeting is:
5pm Pasta dinner (gluten-free available) and drinks
5:30 Welcome and brief task force updates from: Equity; Violence Prevention and Safety; Sick Leave Bank and Child Care.
Our members called for attention to these issues in the bargaining of our most recent CBA. We will hear updates on how each task force is planning to tackle these issues of importance to our community.
5:40 Resources for faculty: Interim Ombuds Officer Professor Jen Reynolds
5:55 Discussion on non-renewals and the on-going realignment.
What information about the process would you like UA to press for from the administration? What impacts do you foresee to your unit?
6:20 UA Member Awards
6:30 Report from the Representative Assembly and call for stewards
6:40 Prepping for A Better Oregon (see below) and two anti-worker ballot initiatives
7:00 Closing toast to the memory of Antonin Scalia.
One of the debates during the union organizing drive was whether or not a faculty union would really mean higher pay. There are surprisingly few studies on this. The American Psychology Association recently released a very detailed report on 2014-15 salaries for psychology faculty, here. The result is just correlational (despite the language used in the report) but presumably the endogeneity bias would work in the opposite direction of a causal effect of union bargaining, so these numbers are pretty impressive:
The presence of a collective bargaining unit in public institutions played a very important role in determining the salaries earned by psychology faculty. Salaries were consistently higher across all academic ranks for psychology faculty whose public institution had a collective bargaining unit. This pattern of results was found for both tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty.
This is a crazy case. How can they even consider it? But oral arguments are today, and apparently the court is likely to rule that people can opt out of paying their federal taxes. Here’s Alito in a prior ruling, explaining why:
“Because the U.S. government takes many positions that have powerful political and civic consequences, compulsory taxes constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a significant impingement on First Amendment rights,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority in 2012 in one of the cases.
Just kidding. the SCOTUS isn’t going to ban mandatory taxes, they’re going to ban mandatory union dues. Alito’s real quote is here:
“Because a public-sector union takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences, the compulsory fees constitute a form of compelled speech and association that imposes a significant impingement on First Amendment rights,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority in 2012 in one of the cases.
The NYT has more on the Friedrichs case here. Currently UAUO faculty and SEIU staff who don’t join their unions must pay “fair-share” fees (about 80% of dues) to cover the union’s cost of bargaining and enforcing the labor contract that they benefit from. If the Supremes rule against this practice, probably in June, public employee unions will be subject to the same sort of free-riding behavior that the government would face if people could opt-out of paying their taxes.
10/8/2015: This is from the trial transcripts, which I’m slowly getting through:
8/4/2015: UO administrator accessed employee email account without notice
Here’s the description of recent events, from an anonymous correspondent:
Administrators Are Permitted to Monitor Emails without Notice or Authorization
Consider the following scenario: Alice,* a staff member with a disability, has been ordered by her doctors to utilize her federally protected leave in order to recover from symptoms emerging from a potentially hostile work environment. Alice has been in contact with the Union, who are investigating the climate at her department for possible discrimination.
While Alice is away in recovery, Bob,* her supervisor and a department administrator, somehow acquires full access to all of Alice’s emails. Bob does not notify Alice that he intends to access her information, nor does he seek authorization from Information Security, General Counsel, or the Union. Rather, Bob simply unilaterally seizes full, unsupervised, and ongoing access to the entirety of Alice’s email account, including her correspondences with the Union.
Such an obvious conflict of interest and invasion of privacy would seem ludicrous if it wasn’t for the fact that it recently occurred at the University of Oregon.
As soon as this data breach came to light, the Union contacted UO’s Chief of Information Security Officer (CISO) to clarify what exactly the criteria were for an administrator gaining access to an employee’s email. The CISO responded that the UO does not offer “wholesale access to another employee’s email.” There would have to be a “specific request” driven by a “business need” and submitted through the proper channels. If such criteria are met, then Information Security will attempt to provide the specific information, and only that information, which was requested. The CISO continued, “The only time we would give over all email would be in the case of a subpoena or other legal request.”
Under such criteria, Bob had obviously violated university policy by accessing and monitoring all of Alice’s emails during her absence from the office. The Union reported the data breach immediately, in conformity with the newly minted executive policy on Data Security Incidence Response.
A few weeks later, the Union inquired with the Director of Employee & Labor Relations (DLR) at Human Resources to inquire after the progress of the investigation. What a difference a few weeks can make! The DLR responded that there had been no violation of policy, because UO in fact has no policy at all restricting administrator access to an employee’s email.
The Union reached out again to the CISO to clarify. The CISO responded that he believed that the situation was handled poorly, and that he did not believe that Bob was “philosophically” justified in accessing Alice’s data. Unfortunately, he admitted, there are no “specific policies” in place at UO at present to prevent, discourage, or reprimand an administrator who unilaterally decides that they have a “business need” to access and monitor an employee’s personal data without their prior knowledge or consent.
The CISO seemed as disturbed by this state of affairs as the Union, noting that it “raises a need for a procedure to be put in place regarding access to an employee’s email account” and that he “intend(s) to write up a procedure for situations like this” which will “hopefully alleviate situations like this in the future by providing a standard process.”
The Union applauds the CISO’s pledge to put policies in place that will provide the necessary checks and balances to reign in administrators who feel justified in violating their employee’s privacy at will.
The response at HR has been less encouraging however. As of this writing, the DLR has chosen to fully back management in this matter. Amazingly, rather than stand up for the rights of one of the most vulnerable members of the UO community in a case of discrimination, harassment, and gross invasion of privacy, HR has chosen instead to escalate the harassment by pursuing disciplinary action against Alice on behalf of Bob.
And as of this writing, Bob still retains full access to Alice’s email.
So, until the new policies are in place, be careful what you write and who you write it to.
* All names have been changed.
It’s more than two years since I started the thread below, trying to find out UO’s policy for email monitoring and access. Page down for the entire history. Obviously there are situations when supervisors need access to an employee’s email, e.g. a public records request or a court order, an emergency illness or death, etc. On the other hand there are situations where that access would be very problematic, e.g. like that above, or when an employee has a complaint about the supervisor, or has used UO email to contact a doctor or counselor or lawyer, etc. So most universities have a sensible policy along the lines of UC’s, here:
An electronic communications holder’s consent shall be obtained by the
University prior to any access for the purpose of examination or disclosure of the
contents of University electronic communications records in the holder’s
possession, except as provided for below. …
1. Authorization. Except in emergency circumstances (as defined in Appendix
A, Definitions) in accordance with Section IV.B.2, Emergency
Circumstances, or except for subpoenas or search warrants in accordance with
Section IV.B.6, Search Warrants and Subpoenas, such actions must be
authorized in advance and in writing by the responsible campus Vice
Chancellor or, for the Office of the President, the Senior Vice President,
Business and Finance (see Section II.D, Responsibilities).1
This authority may not be further redelegated. Authorization shall be limited to the least perusal of contents and the least action necessary to resolve the situation. …
3. Notification. The responsible authority or designee shall at the earliest
opportunity that is lawful and consistent with other University policy notify
the affected individual of the action(s) taken and the reasons for the action(s)
Each campus will issue in a manner consistent with law an annual report
summarizing instances of authorized or emergency nonconsensual access
pursuant to the provisions of this Section IV.B, Access Without Consent,
without revealing personally identifiable data.
- Never share your password with anyone. This includes your supervisor, co-workers, and IT staff.
- There may be some destinations (such as China, Russia, and other areas overseas) where it may be difficult or impossible to prevent your computer from being attacked and electronically compromised.
China and Russia indeed.
8/2/2013: UO has no policies limiting which administrators can read your email or monitor your web use, or why. From Dave Hubin’s PRO:
1/4/2015: The UO administration’s secret plan to abolish the UO Senate
UO Matters operatives have obtained a “confidential” memo from former UO General Counsel Randy Geller to former Interim President Bob Berdahl, recommending that Berdahl abolish the University Senate and prohibit most faculty members from being members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, Faculty Advisory Counsel, Student Conduct committee, the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, etc.
1) abolition of the current UO Senate and all its committees;
2) creation of a new faculty-only Senate, limited to making recommendations to the administration;
3) membership on key committees to be restricted to non-bargaining unit faculty; and
4) other committees replaced by “administrative advisory groups” serving at the president’s pleasure.
Geller’s proposal seems insane, but key parts of it have already been implemented, and it seems the likely source for the statements Interim President Coltrane made at the December emergency Senate Exec meeting about the need for changes in faculty governance “given our new unionized environment”. Coltrane has kept the administrative advisory groups that Bob Berdahl and Mike Gottfredson set up to replace Senate committees, such as the President’s Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics, the Budget Advisory Group, and the Public Records Administrative Advisory Group.
Coltrane has also been working with new UO AVP Chuck Triplett (the former OUS apparatchik who helped Pernsteiner fire Richard Lariviere) and new University Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms to set up a President-appointed Policy Advisory Committee, and revoke the faculty authority that has existed since the founding of the University of Oregon and which is a normal part of faculty governance at other universities.
In addition, last year BOT Chair Chuck Lillis went along with Geller and Berdahl’s plan to cut the Senate out of the Delegation of Authority debate, and tried to do the same again last month with Triplett and Coltrane’s plan to drop the Senate from the policy development and approval process.
You might ask why our university’s top lawyer would attempt to hide his legal opinions about faculty governance from the faculty – and why people like Dave Hubin would help him keep the secret. You might also ask why the our VPs for Academic Affairs, Doug Blandy and Barbara Altman, would try to hide their advice about grading in the event of a GTF strike from the faculty who assign grades. Maybe Scott Coltrane will have some answers at the next Senate meeting, Wednesday, Jan 14th.
1/13/2015 update: UO won’t share shared governance advice
We’ve had a series of attacks on shared governance over the last few years, led by Bob Berdahl and Mike Gottfredson, but unfortunately continuing under Scott Coltrane with the attempt to subvert the Policy on Policies and the UO Constitution.
So what sort of legal advice have our Johnson Hall colleagues been getting? They don’t want to tell us. I’ll go out on a limb and say Doug Park wrote this response to my public records request below. Not exactly trust inspiring.
The only way the faculty is going to learn about these attacks is from leaks of “confidential” documents to UO Matters. So keep them coming!
From: “Thornton, Lisa” <email@example.com>
Date: January 13, 2015 at 5:02:57 PM PST
Subject: Public Records Request 2015-PRR-151
Dear Mr. Harbaugh:
Given the broad scope of your request, we anticipate it would be necessary to sort through hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of documents to pull documents that are responsive to your request. In addition, you requested documents that you know are confidential because you specifically requested “legal advice.” Accordingly, your request is denied.
Thank you for contacting the University with your request.
Office of Public Records
University of Oregon
Office of the President
1/8/2015 update: Johnson Hall admins won’t talk about Geller / Berdahl memo
Camilla Mortenson has the story in the Eugene Weekly, here. It seems Coltrane, Park, and Hubin won’t talk about the memo or about the extent to which it continues to guide the thinking of Johnson Hall and the new Board of Trustees. Assistant UO PR Flack Julie Brown is the highest ranking person who will talk on the record – and even she won’t disavow this plan? Yikes. I’ll post additional docs as I get them.
In the Senate Exec meeting today Dave Hubin attempted to argue that the administration had rejected Geller’s proposals. When I left for a bathroom break Dave followed me out, asking what other documents I had about this proposal. I told him I wouldn’t tell him because it might reveal my source. Let’s just say the well isn’t dry. Hubin also suggested that I make a public records request if I wanted to learn more, so I have:
Subject: Documents from the UO GC’s office on legal advice regarding shared governance
Date: January 7, 2015 at 9:34:40 PM PST
Cc: David Hubin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, doug park <email@example.com>, Scott Coltrane <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Lisa Thornton <email@example.com>
Dear Ms Thornton –
This is a public records request for any documents from the UO General Counsel’s office (or outside attorneys) providing advice to the UO President dated from 1/1/2010 to the present, on topics involving:
1) The UO Senate and shared governance in general;
2) the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee and the President’s Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics;
3) the Senate Transparency Committee and the Public Records Administrative Advisory Group;
4) open meetings for the UO Senate, Senate committees, and Administrative Advisory Groups.
I am ccing current interim General Counsel Doug Park, as he should have access to the GC’s records and should be easily able to provide these documents, and Interim President Scott Coltrane for the same reason.
I’ve also cced presidential assistant Dave Hubin, as he suggested that I make this public records request at the Senate Executive Committee meeting today and recently told the STC that future PRAAG meetings would be closed, and may have copies of the advice on these matters.
I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest.
Sent out by United Academics today:
Non-tenure-track Faculty Professional Responsibilities Policy
Over the coming weeks, all units around campus will begin crafting workload policies for non-tenure track faculty. Deans and department heads will be providing input in this process, but in the spirit of shared governance and the collective bargaining agreement, the primary responsibility for developing these policies rests with faculty. To facilitate this important work, United Academics has some crafted some general guidelines for crafting NTTF workload policies; to access them, please click here.
Statement on NTT Workloads in CAS
In recent days a rumor has been making the rounds that the standard workload for NTT faculty throughout the College of Arts and Sciences should be nine courses, with an additional service requirement, and that United Academics approves of this proposal. This rumor is not true. United Academics neither approves of nor requires any such thing. For United Academics’ full statement on this matter, please click here.
Reminder: General Membership Meeting on Wednesday
All union members are invited to attend our Fall membership meeting this Wednesday, November 5, 5:00 to 7 pm. There will be half an hour for food and drink, starting at 5:00. Official business begins at 5:30.
We have a full agenda. First and foremost, we will be discussing the potential GTFF strike & faculty rights and responsibilities. We will have a presentation on the bargaining platform and a Q&A with the bargaining team. We will also be talking about ways that our union can have an impact on the future of the university.
Wednesday, November 5
Ford Alumni Center
Burrito bar and drinks at 5 pm
Meeting at 5:30 pm
See you there!
The Presidential Search
Partly in response to requests from United Academics and the University Senate, the Board of Trustees’ Presidential Search Committee has scheduled a “Faculty and Staff Forum” for Thursday, November 6, from 5:30 to 7:00 pm in the EMU Walnut Room. We hope for a good turn out at this meeting, where colleagues will have their one opportunity to make nominations, to pose questions, and to offer input, directly and publicly, to the search committee. If you are unable to attend or would rather communicate in private, please take a minute to fill out the committee’s online survey or email the committee directly at PresSearch@uoregon.edu.
United Academics General Membership Meeting Agenda
November 5, 2014 UO Ford Alumni Center, 5-7pm
Update: I’m not sure how they slipped this by the Union Treasurer, but apparently it’s an open beer and wine bar, tacos, and donated door prizes. Not quite as fancy as one of Jim Bean’s “clusters of excellence” meetings, but that’s a good thing:
United Academics General Membership Meeting Agenda
November 5, 2014 UO Ford Alumni Center, 5-7pm
Enjoy Food and Beverages, 5:00-5:30pm
I. Convene Meeting, 5:30pm
II. Welcome Members and Guests and Meeting Overview: Michael Dreiling, UA President (3-4mins)
➢ David Rives, President AFT-OR (3-4)
➢ Susan Miller, Benefits, AFT-OR (3-4)
o Get your benefit packet at table
o Door Prizes
➢ Mike Mauer, AAUP (3-4)
o Mike and Dave Cecil (UA Director), the Dynamic Duo says no to overload with brief Q&A (10)
➢ Joe Henry, President GTFF (3-4)
o Ways to Support – sign up at the table, pick up door cards, sign petition
III. Does your Department have a Steward? David Luebke, Membership and Communications Chair, UA (3-4)
a. Willing to serve?
IV. University Committee seats for UA Members – Why it is important and some current openings. Dreiling (3-4 mins)
i. Door Prizes
V. Reports from Chairs and Treasurer (Bill Harbaugh). Chair Lowndes, Chair Cramer, Chair Merskin (10 mins)
i. Financial Report and Audit on our website
VI. Professional Responsibilities, AKA Workload, Policy Development – Get Ready, here it comes and why it matters (15 mins)
VII. Contract Negotiations and the Bargaining Team Deborah Olson, Executive VP, UA, David Cecil, UA Chief Negotiator and ED (20 Mins)
➢ Review and discuss the Platform themes
VIII. Final door prizes, other updates and new business – always feel free to email UA with comments and questions, or submit comments at the table now (5 mins)
IX. Adjourn 7:00pm
9/25/2014 update:The faculty union had lunch today with the new faculty hires. They were in the middle of their orientation, which ends tonight with a BBQ in the Alumni Center. I remember Frohnmayer used to invite the new faculty to McMorran house – not sure when that tradition ended. Anyway, from what I could tell most of the new faculty signed cards, and they reported that the administrators who had talked to them – Barbara Altman, Ken Doxsee, and Doug Blandy – were uniformly positive about the union’s influence on UO. Blandy even sat there at the table as the union reps collected cards from the new hires. Quite the switch from last year:
10/17/2013: Plenty of water in Gottfredson’s well – for Jim Bean
At the faculty union bargaining session on 9/6/2013, the UO administration’s chief negotiator and famed tobacco company lawyer Sharon Rudnick presented President Gottfredson’s final offer on faculty salaries, saying
UO’s VPAA Doug Blandy sat there, nodding his head. Two weeks later the union bargaining team accepted it.
Why was the well so dry? In part because, just a week before, Blandy had signed off on this contract with former interim Provost Jim Bean, guaranteeing Bean about $1M in salary and benefits over the next three years. Dave Hubin’s public records office sat on this request for a month, until after the faculty had ratified the CBA. How’s that for good faith bargaining?
That’s on top of Bean’s odd 2010 sabbatical, and what we paid him after the Senate forced him out in February.
Bean’s new job is Associate Dean for “Experiential Learning” at the LCB. A newly created position. Sounds like a great idea – undergrad internships and so on. You might think there’d have been a job posting and an open, Affirmative Action compliant search for an important, well paid job like this – especially given UO’s troubled history with these administrative golden parachute appointments. I’ve got a public records request in. We’ll see how much Dave Hubin tries to charge for the documents.
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:
It ain’t happening:
But Johnson Hall is doing more than fine:
Time series for the faculty?
… Continuing disinvestment in higher education across the country has led to an overreliance on contingent faculty. According to “The Just-in-time Professor,” a report issued by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in 2014, in 1970 contingent faculty made up about 20 percent of the faculty in the United States and today, they make up about 75 percent of the instructional workforce. They are the new majority, and their plight is finally getting the attention it deserves.
An increasing reliance on contingent faculty has much broader implications. The struggles of contingent faculty are not merely about working conditions. They are symptomatic of the continual decline of what has made higher education in the United States great. At its best, higher education in the United States is about deep inquiry and discovery, controversial ideas, critical peer review, and academic freedom. At its worst, it is about managing enrollment, building a “brand,” optimizing student credit hours, and job training. When the majority of faculty in front of students each day have no idea if they will have a job next term or if they will be able to pay this month’s bills, these core values suffer. When they have no time to meet with students because they have to teach too many classes to make ends meet, these values suffer. When they are so worried about being rehired that they fear engaging in discussion of anything even remotely controversial, these values suffer. The gradual erosion affects everyone—all faculty, students, and the broader society. …