Faculty out of the loop on new UO borrowing

10/14/13 update: Gottfredson is now hiring a full time “Director of Treasury Operations” to deal with the upcoming bond sales that he hasn’t told the faculty anything about:

The University of Oregon Business Affairs Office (BAO) invites applicants for a full-time Director of Treasury Operations. This position is a fixed-term appointment for one year with annual renewals. This recruitment is open to any applicant who meets the qualifications listed below.

The University of Oregon (UO) has recently been granted legislative authority to establish its own governing board and manage its own treasury functions. We are looking for an experienced and dynamic leader to guide the institution in assuming management of the university’s cash and debt portfolio, establish an institution-wide Internal Bank, and collaborate with the new governing board to develop and implement new policies related to debt and investment management.

10/12/13 update: It turns out the football team’s ranking doesn’t matter to Moody’s.

The Oregon Treasury Department just sent me a copy of the July 2012 report from the PRM consultants on the consequences of UO independence for OUS, and the likely bond ratings for UO and PSU when separated from OUS. Full report here. A concise summary:

The cocktail party version is that PFM forecasts a respectable but not excellent Moody’s rating of Aa2 or Aa3. A rather remarkable third of our outstanding bonds are for Mac Court, (before the EMU and Straub) but it’s not clear how much of a hit that made to the rating forecast.

I’m still waiting to get the docs on the meeting with Goldman Sachs, which Gottfredson and Moffitt hid from the faculty during the union negotiations, and which yielded more promising results, or at least that’s the rumor.

9/14/2013: Would you buy a used car from this man?

If the dealer showed you an odometer reading and repair records like this, you’d give him the wave, and say no thanks:

But that’s about all VPFA Jamie Moffitt will show the UO faculty, and it’s the basis on which President Gottfredson expects us to trust his administration when it comes to UO’s finances. Pretty disrespectful, and un-civil.

SB 270 gives the new UO Board the power to issue its own bonds. The investment bankers aren’t going to sell them without seeing some credible data and forecasts. Why shouldn’t the faculty be able to see that same information? And why would President Gottfredson think that his faculty union should cut a deal with him without first seeing the same information his finance people are showing Goldman Sachs?

So here’s a public records request to Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler, asking to see what information UO has shared with his office and the bond rating agencies:

Dear Treasurer Wheeler:

This is a public records request for documents related to discussions between the Oregon Treasury Department, UO administrators, and bond rating or lending firms regarding the potential sale of bonds by UO, or by other state agencies for UO and UO’s bond rating.

Specifically, I am asking for any documents shared with your office or these firms showing UO’s financial situation, including;

a) current data and projections of enrollment, tuition, state funding, grant revenue, athletics revenue, licensing revenue, donations, and other significant revenue streams.

b) current data and projections of cost items such as salary, benefits, facilities services, athletics, etc;

c) discussions and analyses of potential upside and downside risk for UO involving changes in revenue or costs or potential legal liabilities.

d) data on current UO debt and assets and analyses of the impact of the recent changes in higher education on debt and assets.

e) reports from bond rating firms and investment banks analyzing these data and or providing advice to the Treasury Department, UO, OUS, OIEB and or HECC on bond ratings and projections and estimates of borrowing capacity

For universities, the bond rating agencies such as Moody’s and S&P look pretty carefully at these factors, and the consequences of holding back information are substantial. Here are a few examples of their reports, from universities that practice transparency:

9/13/2013 update: The most recent Oregon Higher Ed bond sale was rated Aa1, the second highest rating after AAA. UO’s financial reserves are the highest in the system. UO’s enrollment, tuition, and student quality are all growing too, and SB 270 will soon give UO the ability to issue its own bonds. I’m thinking UO’s well will be able to handle quite a bit more flow than what Rudnick and Moffitt have been telling the faculty.

9/11/2013: Maybe President Gottfredson’s chief negotiator Sharon Rudnick wasn’t kidding when she told the UO faculty on Tuesday that

“The well is dry. Hear me please. The well is dry.”

Or maybe there’s a very different explanation for the 8/27/2013 meeting between the UO administration, Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler, and representatives of Wall Street’s respected Goldman Sachs financiers?

The UO Matters surveillance cameras capture some interesting stuff in the Johnson Hall lot. I’ll make a public records request for the details on the meeting. Hubin’s office won’t release anything until the union negotiations are over, but Wheeler faces some different incentives.

OA’s to get 5% raises in July 2014

But not the retroactive 2012 and 2013 raises the faculty union negotiated. This just ain’t right, everyone deserves a goat! 

10/12/13 update: A reader points out that the OAs got the goat back in October, back when Gottfredson’s lawyers Randy Geller and Sharon Rudnick were claiming he couldn’t give the faculty raises during union bargaining.

10/10/13: UO has 1200 OAs. About 400 of them are supervisors who can’t unionize. Word is that many of the other 800 are interested in unionizing, perhaps by joining UAUO. Job security is apparently concern #1. Comments on this are welcome, but maybe best to do it from your cell phone or home, as a new rumor has it that Geller is monitoring staff and OA web access to UO Matters.

October 10, 2013 
To: Officers of Administration 
From: UO President Michael Gottfredson 
Subject: Updates for Officers of Administration 
The University of Oregon and United Academics reached a tentative agreement on a first-time collective bargaining agreement, which was ratified on Tuesday. In addition, University of Oregon classified employees recently negotiated compensation increases with OUS. These agreements provide for compensation and benefit increases for our faculty and classified staff through FY2015. It is important that we also recognize the hard work of over 1200 Officers of Administration, who provide invaluable support and are critical to the success of the university and our students. 
To that end, the University plans to implement the same base FY15 salary increase package for Officers of Administration that is planned for represented and unrepresented faculty (1.5% COLA and 3.5% merit pool). Also, beginning in July 2014, subject to approval by our new Board of Trustees, the university intends to implement two new benefits for all unrepresented faculty and Officers of Administration: new paid family leave program and reduced tuition for a second child enrolled in a UO undergraduate program. 
Today Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration and CFO, will be joining a meeting with the OA Council to talk about the university’s commitment to all employees, including OAs. 
Thank you for all that you do at the University of Oregon. You represent the highest level of accomplishment and innovation in your field and are critical to our mission of advancing our status as one of our nation’s premier public research institutions. 
[Con Rispetto], 
Michael Gottfredson, President

Join the union, nominate, vote, help run things

10/10/2013: From a UAUO announcement:

Call for Nominations

As specified in the UAUO Constitution, an election to establish leadership for United Academics will be held this term. All union members are eligible to run for office and to vote.
The union-wide officer positions are:
  • President
  • Executive Vice President
  • Secretary
  • Treasurer
  • Vice President for Tenure Track Faculty Affairs
  • Vice President for Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Affairs
  • Vice President for Non-Tenure Track Research Faculty Affairs
  • Chair of the Diversity and Equity Committee
  • Chair of the Grievance and Contract Administration Committee
  • Chair of the Organizing, Membership, and Communications Committee
  • Chair of the State and Higher Education Issues Committee
The Representative Assembly has been apportioned by the Elections Committee as follows:

School
TT Reps
NTT Instructional Reps
NTT Research Reps
School of Architecture and Allied Arts
2
2
NA
College of Education
1
3
3
Lundquist College of Business
At Large*
1
NA
CAS Humanities Division
3
6
At Large*
CAS Social Sciences Division
4
2
NA
CAS Natural Sciences Division
2
2
3
School of Music and Dance
2
2
NA
Research Units
NA
At Large*
5
Library
NA
1
NA
Physical Education
NA
2
NA
School of Journalism and Communications
1
1
NA
At Large*
1
1
*At Large NTT Instructional Faculty have 1 Rep; At Large TT and NTT Research Faculty Share 1 Rep

Any union member may run for union-wide office, with the exception that a candidate for the Constituency VPs (TT, NTTI, NTTR) must belong to the constituency he or she seeks to represent. To run for a Representative Assembly seat, a candidate must belong to the constituency he or she seeks to represent.
In order to run for a union-wide position, a member must return a nomination form with ten signatures of union members by November 8, 2013. If the member seeks to run for a Constituency VP, the signatures must be from members eligible to vote in that constituency.
To run for the Representative Assembly, a member must return a nomination form, but does not need signatures from other members.
Return forms  to the United Academics office: 872 E 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401
To return  by  email send form to:  info@uauoregon.org
More information on the roles and responsibilities of the elected positions can be found in the United Academics Constitution and Bylaws, available on the UAUO website uauoregon.org in the “About” tab, or by navigating to:
If you are unsure of your constituency classification, or for any questions, please email info@uauoregon.org, or call the United Academics office at 541-636-4714.

Contract and dues ratified

10/9/2013: From the UAUO website on last night’s vote:

CONTRACT RATIFICATION
YES: 301 (99%)
NO: 3 (1%) 

DUES AUTHORIZATION
YES: 285 (97.2%)
NO: 8 (2.8%)

Pretty good turnout for an in-person vote, I think the union currently has about 1000 members. Next order of business is nominations for officers and representative assembly members, then a vote by mail. I’ll post the details on this process soon.

10/7/2013: Compiled from various union docs:

Meeting: ERB MEMORIAL UNION BALLROOM, 6PM-9PM, Tuesday Oct 8.



Links:

DRAFT: UAUO Dues and Budget Scenarios, Fall 2013

Revenue:

 

 

1.     Union revenue comes from dues from union members and “Fair Share” payments from non-members. These will be deducted monthly from paychecks starting with the ratification of the contract and will apply to all taxable income including stipends and summer pay. All bargaining members will have the same percentage of monthly pay deducted. At the end of the year our auditor will calculate the FS rate using standard rules, and we will refund the difference between the dues rate and the FS rate to non-union members on their request. We expect the FS rate to be about 85% of the union member rate. 

2.     We expect dues collection will begin with the end of October paycheck (pro-rated). Our fiscal year will start when we receive these dues from the university, presumably Nov 1. 

3.     After raises the annual bargaining unit payroll will be about $92M. However because of the FS deductions every 0.1% in dues is about $86K in annual revenue. This will increase to about $92K next FY, because of raises and hiring. 

4.     With dues set at 1.1%, FS at 85% of dues, and assuming 60% of the faculty join the union, we expect to have about $951K in revenue for the first year, and about $1,039K for year two. 

 

Expenses:

 

 

5.     UAUO’s largest expenses are the “per cap” payments to our state and nation affiliates. In return the affiliates provide subsidies for conferences, support for bargaining and arbitration, and pay for most of UAUO’s legal costs. AFT also lobbies the state and national government in support of education and public employees. Because of our joint affiliation we get a discount on per caps from each affiliate. We pay 2/3 of the normal rate to the AAUP and 1/2 of the normal rate to AFT-National. AFT-Oregon will rebate 40% of our per caps, for the first 3 years, as organizing assistance. This rebate will be about $180K. Net of the rebate we will pay AAUP $214K a year and AFT $430K, for a total of $645K . 

6.     Our main local expenses are staff. We plan on a full time Executive Director and a part-time office person, with bookkeeping experience. Including benefits, we estimate these costs to be about $146K. Office expenses including rent and copier lease will be about $26K, after some cost sharing with our affiliates.  Other UAUO local expenses include sending union members to AAUP and AFT conventions and conferences (including meetings where we can vote on policies), mailings, legal advice, audits, etc.  We estimate these costs at $66,000.  So total UAUO local costs are $239K for year 1. 

Summary and forecasts: 

 

With dues at 1.1% we expect to end the first year with a $68K surplus. The second year we will have higher revenue because of raises, but also higher costs because it will be a bargaining year, and we estimate an (additional) $86K surplus. These forecasts assume no increases in per caps, and are based on estimates of revenue and expenses.  

ERB MEMORIAL UNION BALLROOM, 6PM-9PM, Tuesday Oct 8.

5PM doors open for member check-in–voting begins
6PM–meeting convenes–Chief negotiators present the contract
6:30PM–Q & A with the bargaining team
7:30PM–Finance committee presents local budget and dues proposal to membership
8:00PM–Q & A with the finance committee
9:00PM – Meeting and Voting Conclude
The contract ratification vote will continue until 9PM–ballots will be counted at the end of the meeting and results will be announced via email.
The contract summary, the budget, and the dues proposal will be available at the meeting.

Members do not have to stay for the entire meeting.  You may come, vote, and leave at any time during the meeting.  However, we encourage everyone to attend the entire presentation and participate in the discussion.

Faculty union contract vote, Tu October 8

10/2/2013: Updated announcement with links. 

I apologize but we do not have a budget or dues rate yet. Nothing nefarious, I’m traveling and the OC is busy with the contract and classes etc. Hard to arrange a meeting time to approve everything. I’d post the draft but I’m just one of many involved in this, so that would be presumptuous.

An email sent to bargaining unit members about the 10/8 meeting:

Colleagues,
Next Tuesday’s General Membership Meeting and Contract Ratification Vote are rapidly approaching!  Please mark your calendars and make time to ratify our Tentative Agreement with the UO Administration.
Many of you have written-in asking about the schedule for 10/8.  Here is the agenda for next Tuesday:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ERB MEMORIAL UNION BALLROOM, 6PM-9PM
5PM doors open for member check-in–voting begins
6PM–meeting convenes–Chief negotiators present the contract
6:30PM–Q & A with the bargaining team
7:30PM–Finance committee presents local budget and dues proposal to membership
8:00PM–Q & A with the finance committee
9:00PM – Meeting and Voting Conclude
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The contract ratification vote will continue until 9PM–ballots will be counted at the end of the meeting and results will be announced via email.
The contract summary, the budget, and the dues proposal will be available at the meeting.

Members do not have to stay for the entire meeting.  You may come, vote, and leave at any time during the meeting.  However, we encourage everyone to attend the entire presentation and participate in the discussion.

9/20/2013: Union to use Treetops for contract ratification meeting?

That’s the rumor from the profs playing darts down at the Faculty Club tonight. Hard to think of a more appropriate location, really. Pernsteiner was evicted a few months ago, and if the celebratory goat roast gets out of control – god forbid – the cops will have a hard time figuring out who’s the landlord and enforcing the Social Host Ordinance. Meeting is set for the evening of October 8, details later. 

Provost Scott Coltrane on faculty union contract

Sept. 20, 2013 Tentative Collective Bargaining Agreement
To:           University of Oregon faculty members
From:      Scott Coltrane, interim provost
On September 18th, the University of Oregon (sic) and United Academics reached a tentative agreement on a first-time collective bargaining agreement. The Union has scheduled a ratification vote of the bargaining unit faculty members for Oct. 8th.  The contract will be effective through June 30, 2015.
Both bargaining teams worked diligently over the last 10 months to reach an agreement that reflects our joint commitment to support academic excellence and advance the University of Oregon as a major public research university. The tentative agreement invests in faculty at all levels, promotes academic freedom and research, and reinforces faculty members’ roles in shared governance.
Throughout the past several months, the University has repeatedly voiced its commitment to treating all faculty similarly, regardless of whether they are represented by United Academics.  That means the University plans to extend benefits offered to United Academics to non-represented faculty, including a minimum 8% salary increase at future promotion and, beginning in July 2014, subject to approval by our Board of Trustees, six weeks’ leave for new parents and reduced tuition for a second child enrolled in a UO undergraduate program.
The salary package included in the tentative agreement includes across-the-board raises, money for merit increases, and money to address equity issues affecting tenure track faculty and to establish salary floors for non-tenure track faculty:
UO/UA tentative agreement on salaries
Implement 2014
Implement 2015
TTF
FY13:
1.5% ATB
FY15:
1.5% ATB
FY14:
1.5% ATB
FY15:
3.5% Merit
FY14:
2.0% Merit
FY15:
1.5% Equity
NTTF
FY13:
1.5%ATB
FY15:
1.5% ATB
FY14:
1.5% ATB
FY15:
3.5% Merit
FY14:
2.0% Merit
FY14:
2.0% Floors
Average total raises over this contract for TTF (with compounding) will be 11.9% and average total raises for NTTF (with compounding) will be 12.4%.
Following ratification, the agreement also provides for a one-time $350 payment to full-time faculty who are members of the bargaining unit. The one-time payment for part-time faculty will be pro-rated.   The University will provide that same one-time payment to all non-represented faculty as well.
(The version posted on the “fact-check” page includes this:)
There has also been some misunderstanding by the media about what the tentative agreement means for non-tenure track faculty contracts. For all Career NTTF with non-funding contingent appointments in the first rank in each classification, the agreement provides for contracts of at least one-year in length for the first four years in rank, followed by a minimum of two-year contracts. All faculty in the middle or highest rank in each Career NTTF classification whose contracts are not funding-contingent will have at least 3-year contracts.
Drafting a first-time agreement is always a lengthy and complex process. It’s expected that faculty
members will have more questions or need for clarification. You have my word that I will do whatever I can to get those questions answered. Also, look for ongoing communications and FAQs on the UO/UA negotiations website: http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/.

Provost Coltrane’s message does not include the administration bargaining team’s customary warning to UO faculty about Professor Harbaugh’s “false, inaccurate, misleading, and consistently anti-university” UO Matters blog, though it’s still posted on the official UO website he references:

Bargaining XLI: Union strikes deal with "The University"

Breaking news: Union Takes the Goat

  • Faculty get average 12% raises (all in place by July 1, 2014, 10 months from now) 
  • $350 goat signing bonus (pro-rated by FTE)
  • Increases in sabbatical and promotion raises
  • Admins agree to leave Senate COI/COC (consulting) rules in place
  • Admins agree old IP policy stays unless union agrees to changes
  • Admins can’t snoop into email without rules, notification
  • Admins agree to a free speech policy that gives faculty the de facto (but not explicit) right to criticize UO policies and actions
  • Admins agree to serious new NTTF protections
  • President Gottfredson gets to call himself “The University” (of Nike, or of Oregon?)
  • Noted tobacco company litigator Sharon Rudnick and her consultants walk off with a cool $1M in student tuition, and she avoids a restraining order barring her from campus
My personal take on the raises: 

 These ~12% raises are substantial. About half will be in our paychecks when the contract is signed, the rest in July 2014. However these raises are not enough to get average UO salaries by rank and department to the levels of our comparators, as Lariviere intended to do by fall 2014. More on this later, but some info on what that will take is here. Obviously it is still the goal of the union to do this. Bargaining for the next contract’s raises, to start in summer 2015, will begin in January or so of 2015.

The union argued for more merit and equity money (which can be used to reward faculty in more productive/competitive departments). Gottfredson’s team fought against this to the bitter end, and won a pyrrhic victory on this point.

I suppose one possibility is that the administration would have given the faculty more money if we hadn’t unionized, but they are such bitter and petty people that instead they decided to punish us for our effrontery. If this is true, someone – not me – might argue unionization was a mistake.

Another possibility is that getting UO faculty pay to our comparators is simply not “job #1” for President Gottfredson, who has many other priorities. His initial offer – 1.5% retroactive for 2/3 of year 0, then 1.5% ATB and 2% for merit in year 1 – was a sincere best offer reflecting those priorities. The union team got us that, plus a bit more than he wanted to pay in year 2, plus sabbatical and promotion raises, etc. And a goat.

My view is that there’s more truth to the latter possibility. I’d remind everyone that getting these raises out of the administration took months of struggle and hard work by the faculty volunteers on the bargaining team, and the AAUP’s Mike Mauer and the AFT’s David Cecil. 

They did this in the face of determined resistance from the UO administration, including repeated refusals by VPFA Jamie Moffitt to provide basic data on UO’s financial picture and forecasts. President Gottfredson’s lawyer Randy Geller and Sharon Rudnick pulled a variety of cheap stunts, such as threatening to sabotage faculty consulting work, take away existing rights to intellectual property, and repeal the UO Senate’s free speech and academic freedom policies. 

I don’t think those tools are going to work for our administrators next time. 

Ratification vote scheduled for 10/8, details to come.





9/18/2013: Bargaining now, Wednesday, 10AM to ?, Room 101 Knight Library. Free Coffee.

Thursday’s session was quite the party, bring your colleagues.

9/16/2013 update: The free speech fight between President Gottfredson and his faculty has gone global. Colleen Flaherty at Inside Higher Ed broke the story on Thursday, then CUNY’s Corey Robin posted his take on his blog and on the popular Crooked Timber (tagline: Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made). He included a call to faculty worldwide to write President Gottfredson about this nastiness, and from the emails I’ve seen, they certainly have. The pro academic freedom Foundation for Individual Rights in Education blogged about it here, and Betsy Hammond of the Oregonian has a related story here. The latest updates on the admins anti free speech and academic freedom proposals are here. The language our administrators can’t live with?

“All University employees retain the right to address any matter of institutional policy or action without fear of institutional discipline or restraint.” 

The administration’s bizarre “open letter” accusing me of being anti-university is here. I don’t get a lot of visitors from Saudi Arabia, but I can understand why they’d be interested in this issue. Still nothing from North Korea though.

For Wednesday, items still on the table include salary, consulting, IP, free speech and NTTF contracts. The rumor from the crew planning the inaugural Faculty Club Goat Roast is that Scott Coltrane will be at the bargaining session, to answer your questions about his Sunday RG Op-Ed:

Bargaining should be a family friendly event this time. President Gottfredson’s lead negotiator Sharon Rudnick just received a prestigious international award for her work defending Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds from frivolous lawsuits filed by the families of their deceased customers, and should be in a happier than usual frame of mind. By our count Rudnick hasn’t threatened or grabbed any faculty since the 8/29 session, though someone might want to get a fact-check on that from Barbara Altmann at Monday’s head’s retreat.

PDFs of proposals submitted 9/12/2013 here.

Disclaimer: My respectful 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.

Live Blog:

10:04: ~20 faculty so far. Free coffee and juice. Admin team includes Altmann, Blandy, Rudnick, Gleason and Grado. Waiting for the faculty side to come back for caucus.
10:21: They’re all here.

Art 14, appeals, admin counter. Rudnick didn’t bring enough copies for the crowd.

Rudnick: We won’t let union get involved in picking the promotion appeals committee. Provost’s call. (Problem is that it’s all insiders.)

Mauer: How about faculty nominate, provosts confirms?

Rudnick: We’d need to caucus.

Art 25, Termination w/o Cause, Admin counter.

Rudnick: We’re willing to agree no declaration of exigency and terminations w/o cause, because Jamie is so flush with liquid reserves. The well is full.

Lots of coffee over there too folks, have some courtesy of UO Matters.

Rudnick: The last termination of an NTTF was 1991, and there has apparently never been a termination of a tenured professor, though that Harbaugh guy is pushing the line.

Art 7, union counter on Academic Freedom, Free Speech.

The union counter includes explicit protection for the freedom “to engage in internal criticism, and to participate in public debate”. Also “The University Administration encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate …”

Mauer: We didn’t expect the administration to have such a problem with free speech. We appreciate that you finally backed off last week, after getting shredded in the press.

Rudnick and Altmann: Why did you take out the “con rispetto” part. Mauer: Whoops, you can put it back. (Big mistake, IMHO. This is way weaker than the April Senate policy Margie Paris wrote.)

10:47, Caucus break. So here’s some appropriate music: http://caucascapades.wordpress.com/

~40 faculty sitting here on the group W bench, having a great time talking about our special crimes.

11:53: They’re back

Mauer: Counter on Art 14, Appeal of tenure or promotion. We “At least one of the members shall be appointed from a list of nominees …” Rudnick: List of 3? Mauer: more than 1. Rudnick: 2.5. Mauer: at least 2. Rudnick: Deal.

Art 25, Termination w/o cause, union counter.

Mauer: Appreciate pledge not to declare financial exigency, want protections for other reasons for terminations. Adequate notice, demonstrable financial need, “legitimate academic need”.

AEI:

Cecil: We may wrap up bargaining today. For us, moving forward is difficult given what’s happening at AEI. 3-4 colleagues are not being renewed for reasons we don’t understand.

We want to let you know that why we are probably going to move off the Art 9 protections, but we hope we can find a way to bring these problems up in the future. If we can’t get you to agree with us on this, we at least hope that can get you to understand this issue. One of the AEI members moved to Eugene 5 years ago, got cancer, and is now being let go.

Rudnick: We hear you, we have met with AEI and we will continue to work with you on these issues. We have agreed to your language requiring explanations for terminations, and we will implement this for these terminations as a matter of professional respect.

12:11. Lunch break til 1:30.

1:41, the admins are back.

Rudnick: Art 25, somthing about NTTF extensions to one-year, Geller’s Ok with it.

Mauer: On overhead transparency, you have our proposal, counter?

Rudnick: We have heard the concerns about Kimberly Espy, we will facilitate a meeting with her, the union, and appropriate faculty.

Article 9, contracts:

Mauer: We understand you are not willing to commit to an expectation of continued employment. Our compromise language deals with length of contracts, library,

Rudnick: How about “shall have 3 year contracts”? Mauer: OK. Rudnick, we’ll need to caucus at next break.

Art 49, computers and information assets, union counter.

Mauer: 2.c. Admin must notify union if they take away email or network access.
Sec 7: Sticking point was “reasonable expectation of privacy” words which Geller gagged on. This language creates this expectation, without making Geller cry.  Requires admins to notify union in a timely manner if they start snooping around.

1:56 Rudnick to Gleason: “Are you OK Tim?” Caucus break so the admins can check.

2:10: They’re back, OK with the Art 9 contracts.

MAUER: We have a 3 part package. On the money, faculty are shamefully underpaid relative to peers, UO has the funds to fix this. But we recognize you have moved, acknowledged that UO has problems. It’s not enough, but you have made movement from your initial 5.5% take it or leave it to ~12%.

So, we could accept your last proposal, IF: You stop over-reaching on the IP. We want you to sign a formal MOU on this, establishing a committee and maintaining the status quo in the meantime. On consulting, you guys are insane. We propose you drop the whole thing and go back to the current Senate policy. Deal?

2:17 PM. Rudnick: We’re going to caucus.

2:30 They’re back, Rudnick takes the deal, says Gottfredson will too.

Salary:

Summary of AEI Situation

9/18/2013: Update from an anon correspondent:

Summary of AEI Situation


AEI Background: A majority of international undergraduate students pass through one American English Institute (AEI) program or another. AEI collaborates with other departments to enhance the international students’ academic success, and to a large degree, the students’ future academic success depends on their success in AEI. Currently, the AEI adjunct faculty—who all have at least a Masters Degree—get paid a floor of about $30k per academic year, working up to 60+ hours per week and do not receive vacation time. Additionally, many faculty don’t have the ability to develop an area of specialty within the context of teaching English because their courses change regularly, often term to term. It’s not uncommon for an adjunct instructor to change rooms during a class or change buildings.


Current crisis: Adjunct faculty, in most recent past practice, have been awarded nine-month contracts for the academic year. However, for our current 2013-14 academic year, adjuncts are reporting that they are being awarded three-month contracts. Additionally, four adjunct faculty did not receive notice of their contract renewal. The lack of communication from AEI administration concerning contracts only compounds this problem. Of the four who did not receive notice of their contracts, the following is true for three of the four non-renewals for whom we have information.


A.    The non-renewals were:

1.     Without cause or the reasons given were contradictory to evidence

2.     Towards the end of summer session, right before the fall session

3.     Semi-formally or even informally given by management

4.     Outside of the evaluation process

B.    At least two of these cases are special in that the faculty members were:

1.     Union activists

2.     Not given a reason for their non-renewal

C.    These faculty had positive evaluations (both student and departmental).

The administration claims to be unable to furnish faculty’s own evaluations to them in a timely manner upon request.


Response to Crisis: The Administration’s argument, when the bargaining team confronted them during bargaining session, was that they wanted to maintain flexibility to ensure that instructors “are committed” to the University of Oregon.


What is commitment, if not someone who: has invested in an advanced degree, who has moved to Eugene from out of state, has commuted one hour each direction every day for five years to teach, has moved their family to Eugene, has devoted 50-60 hours per week for the benefit of the students, community, and the University of Oregon?

Update: Latest Rudnick, Kraemer, and Julius invoices for union bargaining

9/17/2013: UO’s GC Randy Geller is hard at work, building trust between President Gottfredson and the faculty with these latest redactions:


8/7/2013: Full pdf here. It took 2 months, $214.50, and a petition to Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner to get UO General Counsel Randy Geller to produce these. Contributions are welcome at the link on the right. These redactions look rather random and, given the extent to which the administration has talked about these issues in public, unlikely to be protected under attorney-client privilege.

The Rudnick invoices include $14K or so a month for “consultants”. Presumably that’s for Dave Frohnmayer’s former assistant and current HLGR lobbyist Marla Rae, for ghostwriting Barbara Altmann’s fact-checks and negotiating reports. No idea why we’re still paying the Kraemer firm – Berdahl had hired them for union-busting, we saw how that worked out. Dan Julius is a moderate, presumably advising the administration on how to cut a deal with the union.

Comments welcome, I’ll have details later. Meanwhile, it looks like the administration is paying about $100K a month to outside lawyers and consultants to do the bargaining with the faculty union.

University agrees to raise salaries to comparators, signs contract with faculty union

9/17/2013: More on the EWU plan, from Colleen Flaherty at EWU

The 2010 Coltrane/Lariviere plan would have got UO salary averages by discipline and rank to the levels of comparators by fall 2013. So it was the same as the EWU plan, but allowing merit differentials within departments. Gottfredson was never interested, and Coltrane has now abandoned this goal, while increasing the Jock Box subsidy to $2.3M. Instead as being known as the leader on this, UO and Gottfredson are now nationally known for trying to limit free speech and academic freedom.

From the story:

But at least one university has stepped outside the box in its approach to equity in professor pay, aiming to bring all faculty salaries up to current market rates for their ranks and discipline, with some getting big percentage raises, and others less. And those involved in contract negotiations at Eastern Washington University say they’d be surprised if other universities didn’t take note.

The plan is the product of long-term planning among the Faculty Organization (the faculty senate equivalent) , the faculty union, and the administration. Samuel Ligon, professor of creative writing and Faculty Organization president, said no faculty member will get unexpectedly rich off of the contract, as it only seeks to bring faculty pay up to the market rate — something most faculty have been below for years. (Median faculty pay is 10 to 20 percent below the national average for rank and discipline at peer institutions. Full professors are most likely to be paid below market rate.)

But the policy communicates in a very clear way the university’s commitment to longtime faculty, Ligon said – something that he and administrators hope will help reinvigorate the university’s curriculum redesign, and other aspects of university life.
“The administration felt that improving faculty quality, and ensuring that those faculty would not leave the university, needed to be the main focus of a new faculty contract.”

9/15/2013: Of course I’m not talking about UO and President Gottfredson.

Sent as an open letter to the UO faculty heads, prior to tomorrow’s retreat:

Dear All –  

Please excuse this mass email, which is from me as a faculty member, and has not been seen by, approved by, or discussed with the UO faculty union bargaining team or any of its members or staff. 

Many of you have read Sunday’s Op-Ed from Provost Coltrane in the RG today, at http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/30445464-78/faculty-university-support-academic-commitment.html.csp. Among other things, Scott says: 

“The university also understands that its commitment to academic and research excellence must go beyond our sports infrastructure. We understand that we must compete in the primary arena of faculty compensation. … The UO’s latest offer would give tenured and tenure-track faculty an average 11.9 percent salary increase and non-tenure track faculty an average 12.4 percent increase. This represents an additional $23.6 million in salaries and benefits for members of the bargaining unit over the life of the contract, and $28.8 million if extended to all faculty.”

I know that at Monday’s head’s retreat VPAA’s Barbara Altmann and Doug Blandy will give their take on the bargaining so far, presumably including an update on UO’s raise proposals.  

Given this, I thought you might be interested in the story below from today’s Chronicle of Higher Ed, about how Eastern Washington University has handled their faculty salary negotiations. They agreed a few weeks ago to bring their faculty to their averages of their own comparator universities, by rank and discipline, within 3 years. 

Their President argues for this on the basis of increasing faculty retention and raising his university’s profile. Though you can criticize the EWU deal as not including enough merit differentials, note that the UO administration’s latest proposal only includes 5.5% for merit, spread out over 3 years. 

Last year UO lost more ground relative to our AAU public comparators:

  • Full profs:           down from 85% to 82% 
  • Associate profs:   down from 92% to 90% 
  • Assistant profs:    down from 93% to 89%

The UO administration’s current salary proposal seems unlikely to do much more than keep up with salary growth at those comparators, and more likely will lead to us falling still farther behind.

This contract is at Eastern Washington University, apparently agreed to a few weeks ago. It’s the plan Lariviere and Coltrane were going to implement at UO by 2014, although without the merit adjustments. Here at UO, President Gottfredson rejected the faculty union’s similar proposal back in March (also with merit differences), and interim Provost Scott Coltrane has just put his name to that rejection, in this RG Op-Ed.

This is rather amazing news, for those following the UO union negotiations.
In the Chronicle of Higher Ed, 9/15/2013:

A new contract for faculty members at Eastern Washington University is being hailed by professors and administrators as a novel way to deal with salary inequities, because the agreement raises professors’ pay based on market rates. The agreement adjusts pay based on the mean salaries identified in survey data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Eastern Washington’s president, Rodolfo Arévalo, told the Associated Press that the university had been offering professors below-market pay for years, and had been losing faculty members to institutions elsewhere in Washington and in other states. He said he hopes the three-year agreement will fix such salary inequities and raise the university’s profile.

From the EWU contract:

In three years, all EWU Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Assistant, Associate and Full Professors will be paid at least their CUPA mean based on rank and discipline. Salary is determined by a CUPA-mean data base from 2011-2012 cross-referenced by a faculty person’s discipline and faculty status. An annual acrossthe-board adjustment is included on top of the CUPA-mean salary as a COLA adjustment.  

Year 1: Faculty with salaries below 90% of market (defined herein as 2011-12 CUPA mean) will be brought to the 90% level. No market-based increase will exceed $18,000 within a single year. An additional 2% (based on the new 90%-of-market salary) will be added to the 90%-of-market salary. This 2% will be referred to as the “Year 1 ATB.”Faculty whose salaries are at or above 90% and below 110% of market will receive an additional 2% of their current salary. Faculty with salaries at more than 110% of market but not more than 115% of the CUPA mean for their discipline will receive 1% of their current salary. Faculty who are currently compensated at more than 115% of the CUPA mean for their discipline are not eligible for the across-the-board increases. 

Year 2: Faculty with salaries below 95% of market will be brought to the 95% level. No market-based increase will exceed $18,000 in a single year. An additional 2% (based on the new 95%-of-market salary and referred to as “Year 2 ATB”) and the Year 1 ATB will be added to the 95%-of-market salary. Faculty whose salaries are at or above 95% and below 110% of market will receive an additional 2% of their current salary. Faculty with salaries at more than 110% of market but not more than 115% of the CUPA mean for their discipline will receive 1% of their current salary.
Faculty who are currently compensated at more than 115% of the CUPA mean for their discipline are not eligible for the across-the-board increases. 

Year 3: Faculty with salaries below 100% of market will be brought to the 100% level. No market-based increase will exceed $18,000 within a single year. An additional 2% (based on the new 100%-of-market salary and referred to as “Year 3 ATB”) and the Year 1 ATB and the Year 2 ATB will be added to the 100%-of-market salary. 

Thanks to an alert reader for forwarding the EWU story. 

Bargaining XXXX: Pay, Consulting, NTTF’s, Free Speech, IP, Computers, Termination

Thursday, September 12, 1pm-5pm in Knight Library 101. This is the big one, be there. not the end, bring more colleagues next time, we’ll probably need an even bigger room as start of term approaches and raises, consulting, and IP come up.

PDFs of proposals submitted 9/12/2013 here.

Disclaimer: My respectful 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.

Synopsis: 

Where’s interim Provost Scott Coltrane? Trying to cover his ass and get the permanent title.

The well paid but increasingly pathetic administration bargaining team has abandoned many of their long cherished proposals to punish the faculty for unionizing, take back faculty rights, and limit NTTF protections. The faculty union team is putting up counter after counter, signing off when the administration responds reasonably, and sticking to its guns when they don’t.

On raises, Gottfredson has known for a while that Rudnick and Moffitt’s claims that “the well is dry” aren’t true. But he’s just realizing that this will soon be common knowledge. Time is on the faculty’s side, and that also is common knowledge. If he’s smart he’ll do the backwards induction, jump to the unique sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium, and we’ll have a reasonable contract early next week.

Or at least that’s the theory, for rational agents.

In practice:

  • Gottfredson finally caves on his free speech restrictions, after being publicly shamed for them (con rispetto). Still work to be done on explicit protections for faculty who criticize the administration. Not that I ever would.
  • What do we have to do to get a similar story out on Gottfredson’s IP and consulting power grabs and his failure to be transparent about UO’s financial situation?
  • Contracts: Admin cuts union proposal for guaranteed contracts lengths, but keeps the principle of gradually longer contracts for NTTF’s as their rank increases, waffles on reasons for non-renewals.
  • Admin computer snooping: Rudnick: We backed off our previous claims that faculty had no expectation of privacy, after widespread faculty outrage. Now you’re trying to exploit our mistake to get a reasonable policy. That’s cheating!
  • That fact-checking job didn’t work out, so the admin team tries VPAA Barbara Altmann at the bargaining table: “That’s a very good question. I’m going to have to stop and think.” Rudnick shuts her up.

Voodoo is here:

Meanwhile the Insidehighered.com story on the academic freedom fight at UO is attracting a lot of comments there, and new visitors to UO Matters:

Rumor has it Howard Slusher will be replacing Sharon Rudnick at the bargaining table. She’s working on a case for Philip Morris, presumably pro-bono.

Sharon Rudnick delivers President Gottfredson’s message on the prospects for faculty raises:

“The well is dry. Hear me please. The well is dry.”

But “it’s a watershed moment”, and that water is flowing a little more freely over in the athletics department:

Synopsis from XXXIX:

  • 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. President Gottfredson signed a Senate approved policy in February, but the procedures required by that policy were still not in place as of August.
  • 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.
Synopsis from XXXVII:

    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%
    XXXX: Live-Blog:

    Good turnout. Donuts arrive. Looks like well over 100,000 kilocalories from here. Get yours!

    Barbara Altmann, putative author of the administration’s fact check pages, shows up to work the crowd. First times she’s shown up for 4 months?

    Rudnick: Barbara is here to talk about NTTF’s, and because she’s the only administrator left who we think might have a shred of credibility with the faculty. Debatable after this post – she won’t even answer emails about what’s posted on the admin fact check page.

    Art 23 Retirement, admin counter.

    Rudnick: 6% pickup, blah, blah, yada yada. I’m waiting for the union team to explain it.

    Mauer: Your proposal requires a causal connection between the state ending the pickup and cutting the budget. Rudnick: We agree that one legislators statement would not suffice to establish this. Mauer: Grievable. Rudnick: Yes.

    Cecil is hilarious.

    Braun catches Rudnick on coverage for ORP folks. Rudnick: We could add that.

    Academic Freedom and Free Speech, admin counter

    Rudnick: We added free speech back in the title and the unenforceable preamble. We take out “civilly” and now say “with respect” – which sounds better in Italian.

    Section 3: Admin now agrees to incorporate by reference the excellent language in the current Senate policy approved by President Lariviere in 2010, though Gottfredson manages to do that without saying the dread word “Senate”.

    Cecil: What’s the assurance that the University might no change Lariviere’s policy? Rudnick: You can put it in the appendix.

    Mauer: We disagreed about whether the freedom to criticize the administration is academic freedom or free speech, but I take this to mean that you agree that it exists, though you’re still not sure exactly why? Rudnick: Correct. To us it’s a distinction without meaning.

    Davidson: What about speech off campus, e.g. a City Club meeting, as a professor.

    Gleason: How could the university take action against a person for free speech. I can’t imagine an activity where the university would be able to discipline them. (Really Tim? No child porn examples for us this time?)

    Rudnick: I think that faculty speech off campus would be covered by the same rules as on campus speech.

    While the administration has backed down a lot, they are still unwilling to explicitly provide the protections for faculty who who criticize the administration that the Senate proposed in April, and which Gottfredson rejected.

    Here’s a clip from Margie Paris’s admirable rewrite of the Geller proposal, presented at the 4/17 meeting. Geller had removed “they are entitled to comment on our criticize University policies or decisions” from the original draft, and added a lot of other restrictive language. Ms Paris fixed it, and the Senate unanimously approved it. Then Gottfredson wouldn’t sign it. Why can’t we get that explicit protection in this contract?

    Article 9, contracts. Admin counter.

    Admin cuts union proposal for guaranteed contract lengths, but keeps the principle of gradually longer contracts for NTTF’s with longer time at UO. E.g. Senior Instructors get at least 2 years. (Union proposed 3).

    Mauer to Altmann: Why did you drop our language about reasonable standards for termination?

    Altmann: Lots of hypotheticals, e.g. we need to change from NTTF’s to TTF’s to teach more grad students (and fewer undergrads?)

    Mauer: Tries to pin her down – what would you agreed to? List of what reasons are allowed and what are not. Do you agree that there are some circumstances which are justification for non-renewal and others that are not?

    Blandy: There’s already plenty in the contract for NTTF guarantees. We’ve given up enough.

    Cecil: Barbara, you said you’d come up with 12 hypothetical reasons for legitimate non-renewals but you won’t tell us what they are. We’ve come so far – you now agree you can’t fire someone for filing a grievance. So why not agree you can’t terminate them for no reason?

    Rudnick: This is too much to deal with in one contract. The well of additional protection for NTTF’s is running dry.

    HAVE SOME DONUTS!

    Cecil: About up and out. Can a department establish a policy for up or out? Barbara starts talking, Rudnick interrupts: Under some circumstances, yes.

    Cecil gets into the nuts and bolts of proving non-renewal was not legit, given that the university will hide the documents, claiming attorney work-privilege.

    Faculty start giggling uncontrollably at Rudnick. She says she does not appreciate not being treated with respect. So, now we’ve got an operational definition of “respectful” in the free speech policy: No giggling.

    Rudnick: Don’t hold me to this, I’m not sure if Geller would agree, but how about if we say we have to provide a reason when we don’t renew someone?

    Wow. Did she really just say that? Green jumps on the idea. Blandy seems to agree. Then Rudnick pulls out her lawyer stuff, realizes it’s not going in a good direction, starts babbling.

    Green: You’ll provide an evidence based reason?

    Rudnick gets nervous. Altmann proposes the admin team tries to draft some language. Rudnick calls for a caucus break, desperate to get her team out of the room before they say too many more reasonable things.

    Braun wants to pin the admins down before allowing them to leave the table: What’s the connection between reviews and contract renewals? Can an NTTF get an excellent review, then get canned for some reason not related to their performance?

    Braun wants Altmann and Blandy to respond. Altmann: “That’s a very good question. I’m going to have to stop and think.” Lame.

    Blandy: After 8 months and $500K in Sharon’s pocket we’ve finally agreed to your proposals to help build a university where NTTFs would be treated with respect by the administration and be able to build a career here. Isn’t this bargaining going well!

    Barbara speaks out of turn: How about if we talk about maximum contract length now? Rudnick: Uh, no, lets not.

    Blandy: I know that we used the uncertainty of university budgeting to argue for a new UO Board, but now that we’ve got that we’re changing the story and blaming our consistent failure to budget on Brad Shelton and his budget model. So, we’ve got a problem with the April 1 deadline for renewals. How about May?

    2:27, caucus break
    3:20, they’re back. Still donuts, come on down, just don’t report them on the HEM form.

    Rudnick: Back on contracts. We will agree to a written explanation for non-renewal. Provost would have to sign it, so it would have to be articulated.

    Mauer: So, it could just say “We’re going in a different direction and you’re not part of it.” Not worth much Sharon, with respect. Mauer proposes better language.

    Rudnick: Starts to fall back into pissy mode. She’s very disrespectful, though not actually screaming this time. You could grieve that! We’re not willing to do that! It means that NTTF’s would have a job unless we could provide a reason to terminate them. (WTF?)

    Rudnick: “We do not have authority and will not agree to make termination decisions subject to any kind of cause or legitimacy review.”

    MOU on one-time reclassification of adjuncts, union proposal.

    This is about whether long-time part-time adjuncts will be eligible for one-year NTTF contracts. Braun gives a passionate, rational explanation.

    Rudnick: But your language would allow someone who has taught 1 class a year for 3 years to get a career contract.

    Braun: A one-year contract. Is that so horrible?

    Rudnick: We’ll need to caucus. Meanwhile, lets go on.

    Art 25: Termination for financial exigency or reorganization. Union counter.

    I’m eating pizza, read Luebke’s blog.

    Art 14: Appeal of tenure denial, union counter.

    I’m still eating pizza, read Luebke’s blog.

    Acceptable use of university computers and network, Union counter.

    Union’s Section 7 calls for a reasonable expectation of privacy for email, files. Requires admin to have a demonstrably legitimate reason to access info. Admins must notify the union and explain their reasons when admins start snooping around.

    Rudnick: Can we delete section 7 and incorporate current policy?

    You’re kidding me.

    Rudnick starts explaining why this would be OK. Even she doesn’t believe what she’s saying.

    Mauer: No, we like section 7 and the “reasonable expectation of privacy ….”

    Rudnick: That’s a legal term and we don’t want to have it in a contract, in case some lawyer might then try to use it to protect the faculty. If you take that out, we’ll sign this now.

    Mauer: No.

    Gleason: Tries to speak, not making sense, Rudnick won’t look at him. Mauer runs circles around him.

    Rudnick: We backed off our previous claims that faculty had no expectation of privacy, because of widespread faculty outrage. Now you’re trying to exploit our mistake to get a reasonable policy. That’s cheating!

    Rudnick thinks the union’s use of “reasonable” is unreasonable.

    Mauer: Let’s take a quick caucus and Rudnick and I can have a secret talk. Rudnick. Thanks.

    4:24, break. Lots of pizza and donuts left. 

    Here’s the policy that Rudnick wants the union to accept in lieu of Sec 7 above: http://policies.uoregon.edu/node/215

    Only authorized personnel [“Authorized Personnel” are persons, including employees, students, vendors, visitors, affiliates, and courtesy faculty, who have been authorized by UO to interact with information assets] may have access to the information assets. Such access may be granted only to the extent and for such time that a business need exists. Access shall be limited, using technical or procedural controls, to the least permission necessary for the performance of duties. The data owner [The Administration] is responsible for determining who may be granted access to data and information assets for which the data owner is responsible. A record of the request for access and grant of authority to access data or information assets shall be maintained by the data owner. [But does not need to be shown to the faculty.] It is the responsibility of all authorized personnel to protect data and information assets from unauthorized change, destruction or disclosure.

    So, don’t delete any of the files on your computer without authorization from Randy Geller.

    5:22, Union team is filtering back in, no admins yet. Cecil is ready to bargain all night, but library closes at 6, we’ll see what happens.

    5:40, they’re back.

    MOU on adjuncts. Rudnick: admin accepts. Wow, how many hours did Rudnick bill to fight this before finally agreeing to it with no changes?

    Art 14, promotion appeals:

    Rudnick: We changed it so the Provost appoints the members to the appeals committee. Blandy: Union can nominate a member, but Provost can reject. Otherwise OK. Mauer: Maybe.

    Termination w/o cause:

    Rudnick: Randy needs to read it, but thinks we’re close. He expresses his respect for the union’s work.

    Conflict of Interest. This is the missing admin proposal that has been holding up a union response to their power grab on consulting.

    Rudnick: Our proposal “clarifies and in some cases changes current UO policy” which the Senate approved just a while ago after much consultation and discussion.

    Art 30, on Overhead and Transparency:

    Rudnick: We haven’t talked about that with Randy yet, he starts chewing the rug whenever I mention transparency.

    Consulting: 

    Cecil: Current UO policy only requires prior approval for a few things. Your proposal seems to require prior approval for almost everything. What problems have arisen that motivate your drastic changes?

    Rudnick: I don’t know.

    Bramhall: When the admin tried to pull this a few years ago there was an uprising, long Senate debate, and a new policy was arrived at after much discussion. Why this sudden change, without notice or faculty consultation?

    Rudnick: No answer, she just looks very sad and tired.

    New bargaining sessions:

    Rudnick: This was the last scheduled session, we’ll talk about where we go from here.

    Mauer: Makes sense, we’d like to get you to agree to a schedule that will allow us to wrap this up next week.

    Rudnick: OK.

    5:52: That’s it for this week, see you next.

    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.

    DA’s decision on bargaining transcripts due Thursday.

    9/9/2013 update: Note that I am not requesting attorney notes, just transcripts taken by a UO non-attorney stenographer:

    Summarizing, I am requesting that the District Attorney order UO to release what I believe are transcripts, or very close to transcripts, taken by a university employed non-attorney, of meetings that were open to the press and public. These transcripts were used by non-attorneys at UO to prepare detailed and widely disseminated public statements about these meetings. I do not believe that attorney-client privilege applied to these transcripts in the first place, but if it did, I believe that these public disclosures constitute a waiver of that privilege by UO.

    Dear Mr. Warnisher:

    I’m writing regarding my Aug 21 public records petition to Lane County District Attorney Gardner, asking him to order UO to provide:

    “copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union.”

    UO’s Public Records Office first responded to this request by arguing that under state law UO could not acknowledge whether or not it had these  transcripts (I’ll use that term, since I believe it’s the most accurate, while recognizing that UO now prefers to call them notes):

    “Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))”

    After I filed a petition with your office noting that there seemed to be no support for such a claim under Oregon’s public records law UO retracted it, but still refused to provide the transcripts, saying instead that:

    “The University respectfully requests that Mr. Harbaugh’s appeal be denied on the basis that Ms. Davis’s notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege work-product doctrine. 

    On 7/29/13 Mr. Harbaugh made a public records request for “copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis . . . on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union.”  While Ms. Davis is a UO employee, she takes notes at these sessions for and at the direction of Sharon Rudnick, an attorney hired by the UO to provide legal advice regarding labor relations.  During these meetings, Ms. Davis acts as a representative of the lawyer (Ms. Rudnick) and the purpose of Ms. Davis taking notes during the meetings is so that Ms. Rudnick may use them to provide legal advice.  Accordingly, the notes taken by Ms. Davis for Ms. Rudnick are protected under the attorney-client privilege (ORS 40.225). 

    Under ORS 192.502 (9), records which are protected by attorney-client privilege are ordinarily exempt from discloser. (sic)  The Public Records Law does provide that in certain circumstances, some factual information that is privileged may not be exempt from disclosure.  See 192.502 (9)(b).  However, Mr. Harbaugh has not shown that he meets the required criteria of that section.”

    These transcripts are records of bargaining sessions between the UO administration and the UO faculty union. By mutual agreement between the UO administration and the UO faculty union these bargaining sessions are open to the general public, and have at times included reporters from the Register Guard and the student press, in addition to well over a hundred UO faculty and the occasional UO student, at various sessions. 
    My recollection is that the sessions for which I am requesting these particular transcripts were attended by at least half a dozen observers, as well as the union representatives from the American Federation of Teachers (Oregon) and the American Association of University Professors, and another six or so UO faculty members serving on the faculty union bargaining team.
    I do not see any specific language in Oregon public records law allowing the “attorney-client privilege work-product doctrine” exemption that UO claims. If there is one, I do not see how transcripts of public events would meet any reasonable definition of “attorney-client work-product”. The Oregon Bar Counsel bulletin at http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/03jan/barcounsel.html notes:

    “In Oregon, ORCP36.B(3) defines ‘work product’ as a lawyer’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories concerning a litigation matter.
    United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Trachsel, 83 OrApp 401 (1987); see also FRCivP 26(b)(3).”

    Transcripts, or for that matter notes taken by a non-attorney do not meet this definition of a lawyer’s work-product. Oregon’s public records law does provide for an “attorney-client” exemption. However, Oregon law also says:

    § 40.280¹
    Rule 511. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure
    A person upon whom ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) confer a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or the persons predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication.

    While UO claims above that one purpose of these transcripts is so that Ms. Rudnick may use them to provide legal advice is presumably true, I believe it is also the case that they are used to prepare the public updates that UO posts on the internet, as noted in my original petition:

    The UO administration regularly posts updates on the bargaining sessions on an official UO website at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/, and did so for the 7/23 and the 7/24 sessions. The UO website above states that the bargaining updates are prepared by Barbara Altmann, another UO employee. Ms Altmann does not regularly attend the bargaining sessions, and was present at these sessions for no more than 30 minutes total, if at all. So these official UO updates are the product of either the Davis or the Grado notes, or both.

    Neither the first or the second response from UO’s public records office regarding this request disputed this.

    The posts for these particular sessions are at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/2013/07/23/bargaining-summary-72213/ and http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/2013/07/25/bargaining-summary-72313/. They are quite extensive and detailed. UO also emails these reports on bargaining sessions to about 275 employees on its labor relations email list, as their public records office revealed after 2 additional public requests.

    In addition, Ms Rudnick has talked to reporters about the matters discussed in the bargaining sessions and recorded in these transcripts. For examples, see the Oregon Daily Emerald news stories at http://dailyemerald.com/2013/02/11/the-thinking-behind-the-uo-faculty-union-negotiations/ and http://dailyemerald.com/2013/02/11/the-thinking-behind-the-uo-faculty-union-negotiations/
    Summarizing, I am requesting that the District Attorney order UO to release what I believe are transcripts, or very close to transcripts, taken by a university employed non-attorney, of meetings that were open to the press and public. These transcripts were used by non-attorneys at UO to prepare detailed and widely disseminated public statements about these meetings. I do not believe that attorney-client privilege applied to these transcripts in the first place, but if it did, I believe that these public disclosures constitute a waiver of that privilege by UO.
    I authorize a week extension for the response to this petition, to Sept. 12. I thank you for your time and attention to this petition and your response. 
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    http://www.openuporegon.com
    On TuesdayAug 27, 2013, at 3:44 PM, WARNISHER Bill <Bill.WARNISHER@CO.Lane.OR.US> wrote:
    Mr. Harbaugh,
    I have not received any notes/minutes or transcripts from the University.
    I will delay making a decision for an additional week.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Warnisher  
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    Editor and Blogger
    http://www.openuporegon.com
    On WednesdayAug 21, 2013, at 5:43 PM, WARNISHER Bill <Bill.WARNISHER@CO.Lane.OR.US> wrote:
    Lisa,
    The District Attorney has received the accompanying request for public records release. If you wish, you may respond with any supplemental information copied to Mr. Harbaugh.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Warnisher
    Deputy District Attorney
    Begin forwarded message:
    From: UO Matters <uomatters@gmail.com>
    Date: August 21, 2013, 2:44:54 AM EDT
    To: PERLOW Patty <Patty.PERLOW@CO.Lane.OR.US>
    Cc: Lisa Thornton <pubrec@uoregon.edu>, Michael Gottfredson <mgott@uoregon.edu>, Randy Geller <rgeller@uoregon.edu>, doug park <dougpark@uoregon.edu>, Barbara Altmann <baltmann@uoregon.edu>, “kate.grado@harrang.com” <kate.grado@harrang.com>
    Subject: public records petition for UO administration’s bargaining notes
    Dear District Attorney Gardner:
    On 7/29/2013 I made the public records request appended below, asking for 
    copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union. 
    Yesterday I received the response below from UO, stating that 
    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))  
    I have looked through the relevant ORS and its references, and the latest AG Public Records manual, and, in an effort to be thorough, the online Multnomah County DA PR opinions at http://web.multco.us/recording/public-records-research. I can’t find anything that supports this denial of the part of my public records request relating to the transcripts taken down by Ms Davis. 
    Ms Davis is a UO employee. She has been present at most if not all of the union bargaining sessions, sitting with the administration’s bargaining team, and obviously taking the discussion down in detail and by appearances almost verbatim, typing on a laptop. The UO administration’s chief negotiator, Sharon Rudnick of HLGR, has referred more than once to these transcripts, while looking at Ms Davis, as a record of the meetings, which are open to the public. My understanding is that taking transcripts or minutes is common practice during collective bargaining, in part in case of post-contract arguments about the meaning of articles. 
    No other members of the administrative bargaining team that regularly attend the bargaining sessions take notes. No one on their team took anything other than very sporadic written notes during the 7/23 and 7/24 sessions that were the subject of this public records request, and which I attended as a member of the collective bargaining unit. 
    The UO administration regularly posts updates on the bargaining sessions on an official UO website at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/, and did so for the 7/23 and the 7/24 sessions. The UO website above states that the bargaining updates are prepared by Barbara Altmann, another UO employee. Ms Altmann does not regularly attend the bargaining sessions, and was present at these sessions for no more than 30 minutes total, if at all. So these official UO updates are the product of either the Davis or the Grado notes, or both. 
    UO says in their PR response that they do not possess the Grado notes, so these posts must be based from the Davis transcripts. Even if they are based instead on the Grado notes, I cannot see any argument for allowing UO to deny my request for the Davis transcripts, much less for UO refusing to say one way or another if these transcripts exist. (Would they also argue that they can refuse to say if any documents that might refer to these transcripts exist?)
    Therefore, this is a petition to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, asking him to order UO to produce the Davis notes, minutes, or transcripts without further delay. 
    Thanks for your help with this petition.
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    Editor and Blogger
    From: UO Matters <uomatters@gmail.com>
    Subject: public records request, 7/23 and 7/24 faculty union bargaining notes
    Date: July 29, 2013 10:18:29 PM PDT
    To: Lisa Thornton <pubrec@uoregon.edu>
    Cc: Doug Blandy <dblandy@uoregon.edu>, Barbara Altmann <baltmann@uoregon.edu>
    Dear Ms Thornton:
    This is a public records request for copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union. 
    I ask for a fee waiver on the grounds of public interest, as demonstrated by the importance of this bargaining to UO’s future, and the continuing public discussion about the bargaining sessions. On the Sunday after these sessions the Register Guard ran a front page story reporting on bargaining progress, at http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30211243-75/university-faculty-bargaining-union-administration.html.csp and another at http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30221769-75/percent-faculty-university-union-bargaining.html.csp. I’ve posted about the discussions at these two meetings at http://uomatters.com, and the administrative bargaining team has posted summaries, and replies to my posts, on their blog at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/
    Thanks for your help with this request, 
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    Editor and Blogger
    On MondayAug 19, 2013, at 5:38 PM, “Thornton, Lisa” <pubrec@uoregon.edu> wrote:
    08/19/2013
    Dear Mr. Harbaugh-
    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))  
    Additionally, the University of Oregon does not possess records responsive to your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by…Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”.  
    The office considers this to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter.  Thank you for contacting the office with your request.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa 
    Lisa Thornton
    Office of Public Records
    University of Oregon
    Office of the President
    6207 University of Oregon
    Eugene, OR 97403-6207
    (541)346-6823
    On FridayAug 23, 2013, at 3:52 PM, WARNISHER Bill <Bill.WARNISHER@CO.Lane.OR.US> wrote:
    Mr. Harbaugh,
    I have received the accompanying  reply for the University. If you would like to add any response please do so with a copy to the University.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Warnisher
    From: Office of Public Records [mailto:pubrec@uoregon.edu
    Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:27 PM
    To: WARNISHER Bill
    Subject: RE: public records petition for UO administration’s bargaining notes
    8/23/2013
    Dear Mr. Warnisher: 
    In his most recent public records appeal, Mr. Harbaugh requests that the University be ordered to provide him with certain notes taken by Brandalee Davis.  The University respectfully requests that Mr. Harbaugh’s appeal be denied on the basis that Ms. Davis’s notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege work-product doctrine. 
    On 7/29/13 Mr. Harbaugh made a public records request for “copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis . . . on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union.”  While Ms. Davis is a UO employee, she takes notes at these sessions for and at the direction of Sharon Rudnick, an attorney hired by the UO to provide legal advice regarding labor relations.  During these meetings, Ms. Davis acts as a representative of the lawyer (Ms. Rudnick) and the purpose of Ms. Davis taking notes during the meetings is so that Ms. Rudnick may use them to provide legal advice.  Accordingly, the notes taken by Ms. Davis for Ms. Rudnick are protected under the attorney-client privilege (ORS 40.225). 
    Under ORS 192.502 (9), records which are protected by attorney-client privilege are ordinarily exempt from discloser.  The Public Records Law does provide that in certain circumstances, some factual information that is privileged may not be exempt from disclosure.  See 192.502 (9)(b).  However, Mr. Harbaugh has not shown that he meets the required criteria of that section. 
    When the Office of Public Records initially denied Mr. Harbaugh’s request, it incorrectly stated that “state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested records exist.” The requested records do exist, and we do not have a basis for saying otherwise.  We will make that correction with Mr. Harbaugh as well. 
    For the reasons outlined above, the University respectfully requests that you deny Mr. Harbaugh’s public records appeal.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa
    Lisa Thornton
    Public Records Officer
    University of Oregon
    Office of the President
    6207 University of Oregon
    Eugene, OR 97403-6207
    (541)346-6823
    Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:44 PM
    Subject: FW: public records petition for UO administration’s bargaining notes
    Lisa,
    The District Attorney has received the accompanying request for public records release. If you wish, you may respond with any supplemental information copied to Mr. Harbaugh.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Warnisher
    Deputy District Attorney
    Begin forwarded message:
    From: UO Matters <uomatters@gmail.com>
    Date: August 21, 2013, 2:44:54 AM EDT
    To: PERLOW Patty <Patty.PERLOW@CO.Lane.OR.US>
    Cc: Lisa Thornton <pubrec@uoregon.edu>, Michael Gottfredson <mgott@uoregon.edu>, Randy Geller <rgeller@uoregon.edu>, doug park <dougpark@uoregon.edu>, Barbara Altmann <baltmann@uoregon.edu>, “kate.grado@harrang.com” <kate.grado@harrang.com>
    Subject: public records petition for UO administration’s bargaining notes
    Dear District Attorney Gardner:
    On 7/29/2013 I made the public records request appended below, asking for 
    copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union. 
    Yesterday I received the response below from UO, stating that 
    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))  
    I have looked through the relevant ORS and its references, and the latest AG Public Records manual, and, in an effort to be thorough, the online Multnomah County DA PR opinions at http://web.multco.us/recording/public-records-research. I can’t find anything that supports this denial of the part of my public records request relating to the transcripts taken down by Ms Davis. 
    Ms Davis is a UO employee. She has been present at most if not all of the union bargaining sessions, sitting with the administration’s bargaining team, and obviously taking the discussion down in detail and by appearances almost verbatim, typing on a laptop. The UO administration’s chief negotiator, Sharon Rudnick of HLGR, has referred more than once to these transcripts, while looking at Ms Davis, as a record of the meetings, which are open to the public. My understanding is that taking transcripts or minutes is common practice during collective bargaining, in part in case of post-contract arguments about the meaning of articles. 
    No other members of the administrative bargaining team that regularly attend the bargaining sessions take notes. No one on their team took anything other than very sporadic written notes during the 7/23 and 7/24 sessions that were the subject of this public records request, and which I attended as a member of the collective bargaining unit. 
    The UO administration regularly posts updates on the bargaining sessions on an official UO website at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/, and did so for the 7/23 and the 7/24 sessions. The UO website above states that the bargaining updates are prepared by Barbara Altmann, another UO employee. Ms Altmann does not regularly attend the bargaining sessions, and was present at these sessions for no more than 30 minutes total, if at all. So these official UO updates are the product of either the Davis or the Grado notes, or both. 
    UO says in their PR response that they do not possess the Grado notes, so these posts must be based from the Davis transcripts. Even if they are based instead on the Grado notes, I cannot see any argument for allowing UO to deny my request for the Davis transcripts, much less for UO refusing to say one way or another if these transcripts exist. (Would they also argue that they can refuse to say if any documents that might refer to these transcripts exist?)
    Therefore, this is a petition to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, asking him to order UO to produce the Davis notes, minutes, or transcripts without further delay. 
    Thanks for your help with this petition.
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    Editor and Blogger
    From: UO Matters <uomatters@gmail.com>
    Subject: public records request, 7/23 and 7/24 faculty union bargaining notes
    Date: July 29, 2013 10:18:29 PM PDT
    To: Lisa Thornton <pubrec@uoregon.edu>
    Cc: Doug Blandy <dblandy@uoregon.edu>, Barbara Altmann <baltmann@uoregon.edu>
    Dear Ms Thornton:
    This is a public records request for copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union. 
    I ask for a fee waiver on the grounds of public interest, as demonstrated by the importance of this bargaining to UO’s future, and the continuing public discussion about the bargaining sessions. On the Sunday after these sessions the Register Guard ran a front page story reporting on bargaining progress, at http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30211243-75/university-faculty-bargaining-union-administration.html.csp and another at http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30221769-75/percent-faculty-university-union-bargaining.html.csp. I’ve posted about the discussions at these two meetings at http://uomatters.com, and the administrative bargaining team has posted summaries, and replies to my posts, on their blog at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/
    Thanks for your help with this request, 
    Bill Harbaugh, 
    Editor and Blogger
    On MondayAug 19, 2013, at 5:38 PM, “Thornton, Lisa” <pubrec@uoregon.edu> wrote:
    08/19/2013
    Dear Mr. Harbaugh-
    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by Brandalee Davis (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))  
    Additionally, the University of Oregon does not possess records responsive to your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by…Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”.  
    The office considers this to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter.  Thank you for contacting the office with your request.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa 
    Lisa Thornton
    Office of Public Records
    University of Oregon
    Office of the President
    6207 University of Oregon
    Eugene, OR 97403-6207
    (541)346-6823


    8/27/2013 update: 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. The latest:

    Many of my readers are on the administration’s laborrelations@uoregon.edu mailing list. Thanks to those who forward the occasional message, more welcome. As part of my efforts to get the bargaining session transcripts, I would like to argue that the transcripts are used by UO or its lawyers or PR firms to prepare public comments about the sessions. So let’s see what info they’ve been sending to whom:

    From: Bill Harbaugh
    Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:57 PM
    To: Office of Public Records
    Subject: Re: public records petition for UO administration’s bargaining notes

    Dear Ms Thornton –

    I’m putting together a response to your email below to Mr. Warnisher from the DA’s office, in which you claim an attorney-client privilege for these bargaining session transcripts.

    This privilege is typically considered waived if the records involved are used by the client to discuss the matter involved in public. I’ve been told that UO uses these to prepare bargaining updates which are sent out the the laborrelations@uoregon.edu listserv, and that this listserv includes many UO faculty and administrators, and perhaps others outside UO as well.

    Therefore It would be helpful to my response to your email below to Mr. Warnisher if you could provide me with 

    a) a complete list of the email addresses of the subscribers to this listserv, including non-UO email addresses, and

    b) any messages sent to this listserv from 7/22/2013 to the present.

    Today I got this response:

    Dear Mr. Harbaugh-

    The email laborrelations@uoregon.edu is not a listserv, and as such the University does not possess records responsive to your request for “a) a complete list of the email addresses of the subscribers to this listserv [laborrelations@uoregon.edu], including non-UO email addresses, and b) any messages sent to this listserv from 7/22/2013 to the present”.

    The office considers this to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter. Thank you for contacting the office with your request.

    Well, that’s partly true. UO has switched its mailing lists from listserv to mailman. But there’s a very nice interface that makes it simple for the administrator to get the list of subscribers and the archives:

    I wonder what excuse Hubin’s public records office will try next? Lets find out:

    From: Bill Harbaugh
    Subject: Re: Public Records Request 2014-PRR-065
    Date: August 27, 2013 2:17:31 PM PDT
    To: “Office of Public Records” Cc: WARNISHER Bill , Melissa Woo , Randy Geller , Barbara Altmann , Doug Blandy , Timothy Gleason

    Hi Lisa –

    listserv may not be technically correct name for the software that is being used, but there certainly is an email list that is used by the administration’s bargaining team to send detailed updates on the bargaining sessions to a wide list of UO faculty, and others.

    I believe these are derived from Ms Davis’s transcripts, and they are often sent out under Professor Barbara Altmann’s name.

    People on the list occasionally forward copies of these to me, one example is below, the header clearly shows the laborrelations@uoregon.edu address:

    FROM: Labor Relations <laborrelations@uoregon.edu>
    DATE: May 10, 2013 5:20:30 PM PDT
    TO: Labor Relations <laborrelations@uoregon.edu>
    SUBJECT: BARGAINING UPDATE: BARGAINING SUMMARY 5/9/13
    _
    A Message from the University of Oregon Bargaining Team_

    BARGAINING SUMMARY 5/9/13
    ARTICLE 12: NTTF REVIEW AND PROMOTION

    I reiterate my request for a list of the subscribers or people to whom the message is sent, and copies of the messages sent, from 7/22 to the present.

    Please let me know when I can expect to receive these documents.

    8/23/2013: UO Changes story on bargaining transcripts

    update: UO is now admitting they do have notes from the bargaining sessions, taken by a UO stenographer. They now claim that these are protected by attorney-client privilege:

    8/23/2013 

    Dear Mr. Warnisher [Attorney with Lane County DA Alex Gardner’s office]

    In his most recent public records appeal, Mr. Harbaugh requests that the University be ordered to provide him with certain notes taken by [UO employee].  The University respectfully requests that Mr. Harbaugh’s appeal be denied on the basis that [UOE’s] notes are protected by the attorney-client privilege work-product doctrine.

    On 7/29/13 Mr. Harbaugh made a public records request for “copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by [UOE] . . . on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union.”  While [UOE] is a UO employee, she takes notes at these sessions for and at the direction of Sharon Rudnick, an attorney hired by the UO to provide legal advice regarding labor relations.  During these meetings, [UOE] acts as a representative of the lawyer (Ms. Rudnick) and the purpose of [UOE] taking notes during the meetings is so that Ms. Rudnick may use them to provide legal advice.  Accordingly, the notes taken by [UOE] for Ms. Rudnick are protected under the attorney-client privilege (ORS 40.225).

    Under ORS 192.502 (9), records which are protected by attorney-client privilege are ordinarily exempt from discloser.  The Public Records Law does provide that in certain circumstances, some factual information that is privileged may not be exempt from disclosure.  See 192.502 (9)(b).  However, Mr. Harbaugh has not shown that he meets the required criteria of that section.

    When the Office of Public Records initially denied Mr. Harbaugh’s request, it incorrectly stated that “state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested records exist.” The requested records do exist, and we do not have a basis for saying otherwise.  We will make that correction with Mr. Harbaugh as well.

    For the reasons outlined above, the University respectfully requests that you deny Mr. Harbaughs public records appeal.

    Sincerely,
    Lisa Thornton
    Public Records Officer
    University of Oregon
    Office of the President

    08/20/2013: I’m no lawyer, but I’ll be damned if I can figure out how state law, or the opinions in the AG’s public records manual, provide any support for the latest attempt by President Gottfredson’s general counsel Randy Geller to hide public records from the public:

    Dear Mr. Harbaugh- 

    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by [UO employee] (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))   

    Additionally, the University of Oregon does not possess records responsive to your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by…Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”.   

    The office considers this to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter.  Thank you for contacting the office with your request. 

    Sincerely,
    Lisa Thornton
    Office of Public Records
    University of Oregon
    Office of the President

    There’s a UO employed stenographer typing away on her laptop, at a speed I envy, at every public bargaining session. Three chairs to the left of Sharon Rudnick, who has mentioned her and her transcripts several times. Now this is suddenly classified? For whose benefit – other than Ms Rudnick’s? Let’s find out a little more:

    Dear District Attorney Gardner:

    On 7/29/2013 I made the public records request appended below, asking for
    copies of the notes/minutes/transcripts taken by [UO employee] (UO) and Kate Grado (HLGR) on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union.  

    Yesterday I received the response below from UO, stating that
    Regarding your request for “…copies of all notes/minutes/transcripts taken by [UOE] (UO)…on laptops during the 7/22/2013 and 7/23/2013 bargaining sessions with the UO faculty union”, state law prohibits the University from acknowledging whether the requested record exists. (ORS 192.502(9)(b))   

    I have looked through the relevant ORS and its references, and the latest AG Public Records manual, and, in an effort to be thorough, the online Multnomah County DA PR opinions at http://web.multco.us/recording/public-records-research. I can’t find anything that supports this denial of the part of my public records request relating to the transcripts taken down by [UOE] .  

    [UOE] is a UO employee. She has been present at most if not all of the union bargaining sessions, sitting with the administration’s bargaining team, and obviously taking the discussion down in detail and by appearances almost verbatim, typing on a laptop. The UO administration’s chief negotiator, Sharon Rudnick of HLGR, has referred more than once to these transcripts, while looking at [UOE] as a record of the meetings, which are open to the public. My understanding is that taking transcripts or minutes is common practice during collective bargaining, in part in case of post-contract arguments about the meaning of articles.  

    No other members of the administrative bargaining team that regularly attend the bargaining sessions take notes. No one on their team took anything other than very sporadic written notes during the 7/23 and 7/24 sessions that were the subject of this public records request, and which I attended as a member of the collective bargaining unit.  

    The UO administration regularly posts updates on the bargaining sessions on an official UO website at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/, and did so for the 7/23 and the 7/24 sessions. The UO website above states that the bargaining updates are prepared by Barbara Altmann, another UO employee. Ms Altmann does not regularly attend the bargaining sessions, and was present at these sessions for no more than 30 minutes total, if at all. So these official UO updates are the product of either the [UOE] or the Grado notes, or both. 

    UO says in their PR response that they do not possess the Grado notes, so these posts must be based from the [UOE] transcripts. Even if they are based instead on the Grado notes, I cannot see any argument for allowing UO to deny my request for the [UOE] transcripts, much less for UO refusing to say one way or another if these transcripts exist. (Would they also argue that they can refuse to say if any documents that might refer to these transcripts exist?) 

    Therefore, this is a petition to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, asking him to order UO to produce the [UOE] notes, minutes, or transcripts without further delay. 

    Thanks for your help with this petition.

    Update #4: New UO proposal on consulting imposes unacceptable new rules

    Negotiations between the union and the administration resume at 1PM Tuesday, Room 122 or 101 in the library. If you care about this stuff, I suggest you show up.


    9/9/2013 update #2: The take from the administration’s bargaining update pages?

    Article 52: Outside Activities
    We presented the Union with a counterproposal on Outside Activities (consulting). The parties did not engage in any substantive discussion about it.

    My notes:

    Gottfredson is not content with just paying us wages at the bottom of the AAU. His new consulting policy proposal will require that *any* consulting activity, even below 1 day in 7, must first be approved by his Provost or designee. 

    9.5 minutes to go. Rudnick is wasted. Cecil just keeps on going. “Let’s go back to the consulting article.”

    Olson: Will this apply to non-BU faculty?

    Rudnick: “My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is *all* policies will apply to all employees.”

    Also see the administration’s “fact-check” page, which notes that their proposed policy resembles that at UW. I’d link to them, but they don’t link to me, so try google.

    What do the transcripts taken down by the university’s stenographer say? President Gottfredson will not release these transcripts, claiming attorney-client privilege. I have a public records petition in to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, arguing that transcripts of a public meeting taken by a university employed non-attorney are not privileged, and that even they are UO has waived that privilege by posting information from those transcripts on the web and circulating them to their laborrelations email list.

    His decision is due Thursday. If it goes against me, I will ask the Senate to ask Gottfredson to waive UO’s privilege and release all UO’s transcripts of the public bargaining sessions.

    9/9/2013 update: Gottfredson and Geller’s process for this consulting proposal appears to violate the UO Constitution, or at least common practices of collegiality. The working group report from 2010 is at the bottom of this post. Some highlights:

    “…required reporting from all faculty members is neither appropriate nor necessary.”
    “…activities performed on personal time are exempt from regulation unless they pose potential conflicts of interest or conflict with the proper discharge of University responsibilities. (See: UO PP 3.095 and IMD 4.015).”

    9/8/2013 update: See bottom of the post for the UC policy – a striking comparison with what Gottfredson is proposing.

    9/7/2013: I will try and avoid hyperbole here, but this is rather amazing.

    At the bargaining session on Friday the UO administration presented a new contract article: Article 52, Outside Activities. At this point in the negotiations, which are nearing conclusion, it is unusual to drop a bombshell. This is one.

    This proposal requires faculty wanting to engage in outside consulting work to first obtain permission from the university. If you are a law professor or PI, you may be thinking that this proposal will not apply to you, because you are not in the union. However it would be difficult for the university to have 2 sets of rules for this sort of thing, and during the discussion the university’s negotiator, Sharon Rudnick volunteered that:

    “My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is that *all* policies will apply to all employees.”

    This proposal defines consulting broadly, and it spells out many criteria that must be followed before permission will be granted.

    Some of these criteria are quite specific, and contrary to common practice. For example, when combined with the administration’s Intellectual Property proposal, it would seem that proposals to do consulting work will only be approved if the agreement makes clear that the work product of your consulting may belong to UO – see 3.h. (This refers to UO’s Intellectual Property proposal. You can download this from UO’s bargaining website, here. It raises a host of problems on its own.)

    Other criteria for approval are unbelievably broad, such as 3.k:

    “The consulting is not contrary to the University’s best interests”

    Gosh, who gets to decide that one?

    These new rules, if implemented, will make it close to impossible for faculty in music, law, business, economics, education, psychology, physics, nano-science, chemistry, human physiology, etc. to engage in most consulting work. If you are in this category, I encourage you to contact your department head and/or dean and explain the problems with this administration proposal, and ask them to contact President Gottfredson and his lead negotiator, UO General Counsel Randy Geller, at rgeller@uoregon.edu, to make those concerns known. Here is the text of the proposal:

    UNIVERSITY PROPOSAL
    9-6-13
    ARTICLE 52
    OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES

    Section 1. As used in this Article, “consulting” means any professional activity for which a bargaining unit faculty member is paid that is external to the University or beyond the assigned duties for which the bargaining unit member is appointed and paid by the University.
    Section 2. Bargaining unit faculty members owe their primary professional responsibility to the University. Full-time employment requires a work effort of at least 40 hours in a full work-week. Part-time employment requires a proportional effort. No bargaining unit faculty member is to receive compensation from a source other than the University for work performed as a part of his or her university employment. Activities unrelated to a bargaining unit faculty member’s University responsibilities and areas of professional competence do not require prior approval, but such activities may be engaged in only on the bargaining unit faculty member’s own time and must be in compliance with applicable law. Such activities by definition do not meet the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.
    Section 3. Consulting activity must have the prior written approval of the Provost or designee prior to initiation of the consulting activity. Approval of consulting activity may only be granted if the proposed activity satisfies the following criteria:
    a. It is within the scope of the bargaining unit member’s professional competence.

    b. The consulting is bona fide and work under the engagement is actually performed.

    c. It will not impair, in quality or quantity, the performance of the bargaining unit faculty member’s assigned duties, including regularly scheduled teaching or work pursuant to the terms and conditions of any grant and contract.

    d. In the case of a bargaining unit member with a full-time appointment, consulting activity does not exceed 39 days in an academic year or 48 days in a fiscal year (including travel). This limitation does not apply to activities in which the bargaining unit faculty member engages during periods of vacation leave or on legal holidays, or during the summer for nine month appointments, or where actual practice in a bargaining unit member’s professional field is required by his or her job description and any such practice has the approvals required in this Article.
    e. It does not involve the use of more than de minimis University resources, except as provided in a current agreement signed by the Provost or designee.
    f. Each client is informed by the bargaining unit faculty member that he or she is acting as a private person and that the University is not a party to the contract, nor liable, nor responsible for the performance of the contract.
    g. The consulting is not under a grant or contract to which the University is a party;

    h. Each client is informed that the bargaining unit faculty member’s obligations to the University, including those related to intellectual property, are primary, unless otherwise approved in writing by the University.
    i. The consulting will not result in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information or the unapproved transfer of University intellectual property.
    j. The consulting is consistent with University commitments under sponsored research
    agreements.

    k. The consulting is not contrary to the University’s best interests.

    l. The consulting complies with applicable law, including ORS Chapter 244, as interpreted by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, and approval has been granted as provided in ORS 351.067.
    Section 4.

    a. Declaration. A bargaining unit faculty member who performs any consulting subject to the approval required in this Agreement must complete the Declaration of Outside Employment or Consulting for Compensation form on an annual basis. An updated form must be submitted throughout the year if a bargaining unit faculty member proposes to engage in outside employment or consulting.
    b. Approval. Approval for consulting by a bargaining unit faculty member may be granted only when the proposed activity satisfies the criteria set forth in this Article. In his or her request for approval, a bargaining unit faculty member must provide the following information to the Provost or designee: (1) an estimate of the time that will be required; (2) the subject and scope of the activity; and (3) the extent to which University facilities will be used.
    c. Use of University Resources. If University resources are to be used (other than assigned office or studio space or the library and subject to priority for their use in University activities), the bargaining unit faculty member must enter into a written agreement with the University (acting through the Provost or designee) prior to using any such resources. Such an agreement must: (1) stipulate the kind and extent of equipment usage, the direct costs to be incurred, and liability for personal injury or damage to University property; (2) include provisions for appropriate advance payment to the University; (3) and indicate that the required administrative approvals for the consulting has been obtained.
    d. Other Work. Any work by a bargaining unit faculty member for the University that is in addition to the bargaining unit faculty member’s primary University employment, whether or not it is termed consulting, must be approved by the Provost or designee, and compensation for any such work is taxable as income, unless the Vice President for Finance and Administration or designee has approved an independent contractor relationship.
    Section 5. 
    The following outside activities do not require approval if they are uncompensated except for reasonable expenses and nominal honoraria, and are consistent with the bargaining unit faculty member’s obligations to the University:
    a. Participation in scholarly, professional, and philanthropic activities, such as service on advisory bodies or public commissions related to the bargaining unit member’s field of professional competence;
    b. Presenting lectures or leading seminars or workshops in the bargaining unit member’s area of professional competence at other universities, colleges or not-for-profit institutions;

    c. Visiting the laboratories of colleagues at other universities, colleges, or not-for-profit institutions.

    Update from 9/8/2013:

    A reader sends this link to the University of California policy on outside work and Intellectual Property. UC encourages faculty to do consulting for 1 day in 7. No prior approval is required:

    The University of California encourages faculty to participate in outside professional activities that contribute to their profession and to the broader community and contribute to the University’s public service mission. Engagement with the outside community is also an important component of the academic enterprise and one way in which faculty and other researchers maintain contact with research directions and priorities that exist in the private sector. This knowledge also guides faculty in preparing students for careers in the private sector.

    When it comes to IP, UC wants to know about their faculty’s patentable inventions so they can negotiate a split of the royalties:

    The University must be able to meet its obligations assumed under legal contractual obligations with regard to intellectual property rights. Such rights may be generated by faculty and other researchers as a result of sponsored research agreements, material transfer agreements, and other research support agreements entered into on behalf of those faculty and research staff. Therefore, all inventions made by a University employee must be disclosed to the University, including inventions made on weekends, on leave, at home “in the garage,” or during paid or unpaid consulting work. Disclosure is a legal obligation of employment at the University. 

    Employees must assign inventions when certain conditions exist  

    The process of determining the University’s rights in any potentially patentable invention made by a University employee is initiated with the disclosure of an invention, typically on a Record of Invention form. The University may assert its right to an invention based on three primary criteria: 

    1) the use of University funds or facilities in conceiving and/or developing the invention;

    2) potential obligations to third parties; and 

    3) intellectual property rights and obligations that arise from the faculty/researcher’s scope of University employment. 

    The determination regarding the use of University funds or facilities and third party obligations is typically managed by the campus/Laboratory authorized licensing, contracts and grants, or comparable administrative office. For University faculty and researchers, the question of an employee’s scope of employment is initially an academic issue best addressed by the appropriate University academic manager – most often the department chair or dean – with guidance from the Office of General Counsel as necessary. 

    UC does not purport to claim they own your class notes and writings or whatever is on your computer, or everything you do as a scholar, by default. But that is exactly what Gottfredson is letting Geller try to do in UO’s Article 51:

    Section 10. Reservation of Rights. The University is hereby granted the right to an irrevocable, non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license for the use of inventions, technological improvements, works of authorship, and other Intellectual Property not owned by the University but related to a bargaining unit faculty member’s fields of professional competence, unless a written document assigning that right has been executed by an authorized University official. 

    But even that is not enough for UO. In article 49, they assert they own everything you store on a UO computer or network.

    9/9/2013 update: Gottfredson and Geller’s process for this consulting proposal appears to violate the UO Constitution, or at least common practice of collegiality:

    See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/COCReportFINAL3Feb10.pdf (Joint Provost- and Senate-appointed Working Group)
    Conflict of Commitment Working Group
    John Bonine, School of Law
    Ron Bramhall, Lundquist College of Business
    Mike Bullis, College of Education
    Moira Kiltie, Office of Vice-President for Research and Graduate Studies
    Robert Z. Melnick, Department of Landscape Architecture (chair)
    Larry Singell, College of Arts and Sciences
    Christine Theodoropoulos, Department of Architecture
    Lisa Wolverton, Department of History
    “…the working group met a number of times in spring and fall terms 2009, examined existing policies relevant to the issue (UO Policy Statement 3.095 and OUS Internal Management Directive [IMD] 4.015), consulted with the General Counsel, and reviewed examples of conflict of commitment (COC) policies from other academic institutions across the country.”
    Recommended policies and comments
    “…required reporting from all faculty members is neither appropriate nor necessary.”
    “…activities performed on personal time are exempt from regulation unless they pose potential conflicts of interest or conflict with the proper discharge of University responsibilities. (See: UO PP 3.095 and IMD 4.015).”
    “…conflicts of commitment are best resolved at the most local level and encourage individual units to develop a process and interpretations to implement this policy.”
    “…. It should be left to individual units to define “one day per week apart from personal time” more specifically, as necessary or appropriate, within the accepted norms of the various fields and disciplines. This recommendation is consistent with our interpretation of the rule after consultation with General Counsel.”
    (No policy subsequently proposed by the Office of Academic Affairs in consultation with the Senate to carry out the recommendations.  So instead, General Counsel now ignores the shared governance process and tries to ram in a Big Brother/”we own you” policy through collective bargaining.

    Surely Geller did not bother to tell Gottfredson of this history and how he was going behind the back of the Senate’s and Office of Academic Affairs’ previous work on this.