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.

UO to give students $450K in need-based scholarships!

8/13/2013: Just kidding, that’s how much Athletic Director Rob Mullens is paying the Nicholls State University Colonels football team to show up in Autzen and lose to the Ducks, 4 weeks before the UO students even show up for classes. Vegas has Oregon by 51 points. College sports at its finest. Sam Stites has the story in the RG. Meanwhile VPFA Jamie Moffitt says UO’s budget doesn’t have any more money for faculty raises, while President Gottfredson still hasn’t done jack about the UO Senate resolution calling for him to end the subsidies for athletics, and start redirecting some money to academics, starting in the fiscal year that began 7/1/2013, and send money for need and merit scholarships, starting 7/1/2014.

Moffitt tries to explain UO’s excessive reserves to OUS

6/27/2013: From the minutes of the 5/24 OUS F&A meeting:

Projected campus fund balances for biennial-end include: EOU, 5.1%; OIT, 12.4%; OSU, 8.4%;
PSU, 14.2%; SOU, 7.4%; UO, 17.%; WOU, 16.6%; and Chancellor’s Office, 20.7%. Vice President
Moffitt, UO, advised that they are preparing a written plan for submission to the Board
concerning their fund balance exceeding the Board policy maximum. She advised that this
increase is due to the continued delays in hiring tenure-track faculty necessary to support the
increased enrollment and related expenditures for the support of new hires. Management
projects the fund balance will decrease at the end of Fiscal Year 2014 with the anticipated new
hires and related PERS increases. She advised that 42 letters of offer were extended with 30
acceptances; with the retiring and resigning of current faculty, the net will not be 42 but
anticipate a net of approximately 15 new faculty hires. Interim Chancellor Rose requested that
a report on current recruitment efforts and expected outcomes be included in the written plan
submitted to the Board. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate motion to cut athletic subsidies, for this Wed. meeting

5/6/2013: Sharon Rudnick and VPFA Jamie Moffitt have proposed $12M annually for faculty raises. The faculty union is asking for $25M. Rudnick and her team have made an impassioned plea for help finding $13M in recurring funds to make up the difference, stating that if UO can’t find the money in budget cuts, then we will have to raise tuition.

So, here’s a Senate motion I’m introducing at this Wednesday’s meeting. This will yield a quick $4.5M, by cutting back on a few of the athletic subsidies that the academic side is currently paying, and requiring a modest payment from the AD for academic scholarships, limiting the pain from any tuition increases.

Comments welcome!

Meaningful Contributions from the Athletics Department for Academic Purposes
Number: US12/13-20

Date of Notice: Wed, 02/13/2013

Legislation, Resolution, or Policy Adoption: Legislation

Current Status: 

Motion:

1) Whereas in 2004 the UO Athletics Task Force, which included President Frohnmayer, Athletic Director Bill Moos, NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative Jim O’Fallon, the Senate President, and many Senate and faculty representatives, concluded a 3 year study of UO athletics with a report that stated as recommendation #1 that

The Task Force and the Athletic Department recommend a voluntary financial contribution by athletics to the Presidential Scholarship fund.[1]

2) and, whereas in 2008 the UO Senate passed a resolution titled “Revenue Sharing with the Athletic Department” which concluded

Be it moved that:

The Athletic Department, Administration, and Faculty work together to outline a mechanism that, under the appropriate fiscal conditions, would allow the Athletic Department to provide a meaningful proportion of their yearly revenues to the general fund to aid the academic mission of the university.[2]
3) and, whereas 9 years have now passed since the 2004 Task Force report, and 5 years since the 2008 Senate motion, during which annual operating expenditures by the athletic department have increased from less than $40 million to more than $90 million,[3]

4) and, whereas the athletic department is still not making any direct financial contributions to the support for UO’s academic mission, beyond a few small and intermittent donations to the library,

5) and, whereas UO’s academic side has been making a variety of new and increased payments in support of the athletic department, including since 2010 an estimated $1.8 million dollars per year for the tutoring services at the Jaqua Center for Student-Athletes that are available only to student-athletes,[4]

6) and, whereas UO’s academic budget has been paying $467,538 a year since 2009 to help repay the bonds used to purchase the Knight Arena land,[5]

7) and, whereas the athletic department solicits donations and ticket surcharges for the Duck Athletic Fund, totaling ~$30M for 2012-13,[6] with the statement that

The mission of the Duck Athletic Fund is to raise funds to offset the expenses of student-athletic scholarships and related athletic department support at the University of Oregon.[7]

8) and, whereas in the most recently reported data, 2011-12, the athletic department paid only $7 million from these DAF funds to the academic side for tuition.[8]

Moved: The UO Senate directs the UO Athletic Department to

  1. Pay from its budget the full cost of providing tutoring and academic support for student-athletes, beginning in AY 2013-14.

  2. Pay from its budget the full cost of the bonds used to purchase the Knight Arena land, beginning in AY 2013-14.

  3. Each year beginning with FY 2014-15 set aside from the athletic department budget a sum equal to 2% of the athletic department’s prior year spending on athletics, and redirect these funds towards UO’s academic purposes, including but not limited to scholarship and student support services for low-income Pathways Oregon students, and academic merit scholarships.
Financial Impact:

Cost neutral.

University hires new VP for Finance and Administration for $236K

5/4/2013: The university has successfully concluded an open national search for a new VP for Finance and Administration. The president reports to the faculty:

“Our former VPFA did an exemplary job of helping keeping the university on a sound financial footing in a difficult economic environment and doing so in a most transparent manner. Our new VPFA has the experience and vision to continue that success as the university moves forward.”

 The salary is a substantial $236K:

But the new hire has many years of experience as VPFA at smaller universities, and $236K seems to be the competitive wage for a university with 25,000 students and a research budget of $160M a year. Plus, the university is not taking much risk with a one year contract, and must pay accordingly.

Oh wait. Sorry. The above is the deal for OSU’s new VPFA, Glenn Ford. Here at UO, our VPFA is Jamie Moffitt, and we pay her $270K. 

She was hired in 2012 after a failed search for an outside candidate. She was on the search committee that rejected the other applicants – no conflict of interest there! Her previous financial experience seems to consist of a few years managing the budget for the UO law school, and then 18 months or so doing the same for the UO athletic department. During which time she proved her loyalty by hiding the details of the strange and expensive deals between Dave Frohnmayer and Duck booster Pat Kilkenny, whom he had appointed athletic director. Pretty risky to appoint an outsider who might not understand the benefits of “The Oregon Way”. And she’s proving her loyalty again, by hiding UO’s budget projections from the UO faculty:

No money for faculty raises?

Sharon Rudnick, when delivering the administration’s counter-offer last week:

“You can argue whatever you want. This is what it is. This is our best offer. You can make all the accusations you want.”

 The union’s slightly more temperate response:

Our proposal would redirect 2% of the university’s total operating budget by fiscal year 2015. Their proposal would equate to around 1% of the total operating budget for the same period. The difference is not monumental. Yet the administration’s bargaining team was stubborn in its insistence that our proposal is too expensive. 

Vice-President Moffitt explained at great length the university’s revenue streams, its expenses, and its unrestricted net assets. What she did not explain specifically is what the fixed expenses cover; what the administration’s spending priorities are; and what principles guide the university’s budget policies. The information she provided gave no evidence that the administration has been rethinking the way it distributes funds. Instead, she and her colleagues propose to raise tuition in order to raise salaries. Well, tuition has been rising every year for many years, and it hasn’t resulted in increases to the instructional budget in general or faculty salaries in particular. 

We believe that a re-examination of how funds are presently distributed within the university would lead to different solutions. Finding these solutions together would be a much more productive way to spend our time at the bargaining table than having to listen to reasons why, for example, the administration finds it hard to create one printed copy of the Faculty Handbook (to which they finally agreed) or why they think defining “University” as “University of Oregon” solves our (and the Senate’s) objection to their calling themselves the “University.” But since the administration isn’t having that conversation, the union will start collating the many ideas we’ve been hearing from across the UO community—NTTF, TTF, ORs, OAs, staff, and students—for saving money and rethinking the budget. … 

The University of Oregon is ranked 9th out of 9 AAU comparator universities in salaries, and the administration’s meager proposal will not change this fact. We acknowledge their team’s willingness to discuss adding back compression/equity and salary floors, but we do not accept their assertion that they have no other resources to put towards our proposal. We reject their premises and methodology. We will be pushing them to take seriously the need to rethink their spending priorities and to work with us to make faculty what they say we are: the top priority. We welcome your support and encourage you to attend our next sessions on Tuesday, May 7, and Thursday, May 9.

4/29/2013: The guy that Jamie Moffitt sent to the Thursday bargaining session to answer questions about how UO couldn’t afford to pay its faculty? He got an 18% raise over the past 2 years:

Nov 2010:

Nov 2012 (last available):

I’m sure he’s earning it. Probably more than Moffitt earned her own 75% raise – which she got after a failed search for an outside VPFA. She was on the search committee that made the call. No conflict of interest there!

Nov 2010:

Nov 2012:
Tim Gleason got about 10% (and he gets a $20K stipend).

Nov 2010:

Nov 2012:
While Doug Blandy’s raise was from $90K to $175K. Not a bad promotion raise: 94%.
And admin bargaining team spokesperson Barbara Altmann got a 45% promotion raise over these two years.

While President Gottfredson came in at a $540K salary. For comparison, the chancellor of UCLA gets $425K, after 6 years in the job.

Drop baseball, give the faculty 4% merit raises

3/25/2013: Let’s help UO’s VPFA (and former athletic department chief financial officer) Jamie Moffitt find the money to pay for the faculty raises in the Lariviere plan. Every 1% raise for the faculty (TTF and NTTF) costs UO about $910K. Add in the variable benefit costs and it’s about $1.15M.

Sharon Rudnick has asked the faculty for suggestions on where to find the money. Here’s one. Pat Kilkenny’s baseball program cost UO millions in fixed costs – we still owe about $5 million on a balloon loan for his PK Park. We’re stuck with that “gift”. But, according to the official AD data posted at GoDucks.com, this year’s variable costs for baseball will be almost $2.2 million:

while revenue is only projected at $385K:
So drop baseball and we’d certainly save $1.8 million next year, enough for a 1.6% raise for the faculty. But that’s ignoring their share of the $52M in athletics department “administrative expenses”. Prorate that on the basis of baseball’s share of variable costs, $2.1M/$30M=7%, and get another $3.5M. Let’s be real conservative and call it $4.6 million in savings total. That’s enough to pay for the 4% merit pool the union is calling for in 2014-15. 
Thinking about Title 9 compliance? Drop baseball and we could drop Kilkenny’s competitive cheerleading program too. That would save another $800K plus admin expenses – enough to cut tuition by about $100 for every in-state student.

Moffitt forgot to tell us about this one

Currently UO pays 12.21% into its defined contribution ORP for employees hired after 2003, and 22.14% for those before. That will increase to 12.41% and 26.9% in July. VPFA Jamie Moffitt told the faculty that we couldn’t get real raises because of these expected increases in the cost of retirement benefits. 
She didn’t mention the various bills in the legislature to cut those costs (and PERS retirement benefits). Nor did she mention this proposed legislation from OUS, which would modify the ORP that most new faculty opt into, cutting UO’s cost of retirement benefits for new hires to just 8% of salary, or 12% for those contributing at least 4% on their own. 

Very sneaky Jamie. So how much would UO costs for new hires fall if this passes? Lets say from 12.21% to 10%, assuming a 50% take-up rate on the match – read this paper for more. 3/23/2013.

VPFA Jamie Moffitt’s secret slides

3/16/2013: Back in December Jamie Moffitt gave a presentation on UO budget projections to a closed OUS board meeting. I tried to attend as a journalist, they kicked me out. The RG made a public records request for the numbers UO presented, as did I. Here’s what we got back, late last week:

Attached, please find the documents responsive to your mirror request for “The forecast or projection document/s that the University of Oregon submitted to the Finance and Administration Committee of the Oregon Board of Higher Education for the committee’s Dec. 21, 2012 executive session in Eugene”, made 1/2/2013. Any redactions were made under the Internal Advisory Communication exemption, ORS 192.502 (1).

I’ve posted a full copy of Moffitt’s powerpoint here – but don’t bother, it’s all redacted like this. And Jamie Moffitt wants us to trust her when she tells the union there’s no money for raises? No thanks.

Personally, I’d rather trust Howard Bunsis from the AAUP. Bunsis is willing to deliver his presentation in public, he’ll take questions without stomping out of the meeting in a huff, and he posts the uncensored slides:

Who’s on first?

3/16/2013. What exactly are “the duties of the University President for the 2012 Rose Bowl”? And why did our students have to pay Lorraine Davis to go to Pasadena and perform them?

Who knows. The real question is how much money VPFA Jamie Moffitt will let Johnson Hall spend on these junkets next time. According to the history Nathan Tublitz has dug up – which includes UO paid trips for Moffitt and her husband – that would be quite a lot:

On 15-03-2013 16:36, Office of Public Records wrote: 3/15/2013 

Dear Mr. Tublitz- 

My apologies, Rob Mullens should have been included on the list. He
received two tickets. 

I have been informed that Lorraine Davis, who was acting Provost at
the time, fulfilled the duties of the University President for the
2012 Rose Bowl. 

Please let me know which Senior Administrators you believe are
missing from the list, and I will look into the matter further. 

Thank you,
Lisa
Lisa Thornton
Public Records Officer
University of Oregon
Office of the President
6207 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-6207
(541)346-6823

Union Bargaining XII: Bunsis v. Moffitt

Postmortem: My take on the pity raise proposal:

  • Bunsis beats Moffitt with a TKO after his simple question got her so flustered she left the room.
  • Good faculty turnout, I got $30 on cover charges so far, thanks. 
  • Bunsis presentation slides are here, video soon. Takeaway? OUS says UO should have reserves between 5 and 15% of spending. UO’s are currently at 15.8%, even after accounting for the fact that the $80 million jock budget – more than 10% of UO – has zero stated reserves.
  • VPFA Jamie Moffitt thinks she is protecting the faculty from harsh and complex fiscal realities by making sure we only get pity raises.
  • Gottfredson has apparently abandoned Lariviere’s “job number one” plan to get UO salaries up to to AAU peers. Presumably this means he’s also given up on keeping us in the AAU. Now Moffitt can justify giving us community college pay rates, with $200 a year potential raises for research merit.
  • Of course the admin wants to raise our salaries, it’s just that it’s their lowest priority. Cops, guns, SUV’s, the Jock Box, Matt court parking, paying twice for Mac court, beamers, athletic overhead subsidies, sabbaticals for Bean, Jamie’s 15.8% reserve all come first.
  • Not yet clear if the union will accept Gottfredson’s proposal or counter. My read of faculty sentiment is that it is overwhelmingly in favor of rejecting it, and making a serious counter-proposal.

Prologue: On Tuesday Gottfredson dropped his 2% merit puddle ultimatum plan on the faculty without warning. Today the administrators are here in force to attempt to defend it. The union side is joined by AAUP forensic accountant Howard Bunsis. Still a few seats left at $5 per, come on down.


Venue: Room 122 Knight Library, 8AM, Thursday 3/7/13. First floor, towards the back on the RHS. $5 cover. I’ll take cash at the door or online:

Donate $5 to pay Dave Hubin’s public records fees

 

Handstamp needed for re-entry.

Prologue:

Cast: For the admin: Kelly Wolf, controller. Brad Shelton, budget plan guy. Jamie Moffitt, VPFA. (That would be the Moffitt who got hired after a failed search, and hides athletic subsidies from the Senate, not the Moffitt who hid the CnC program from his faculty and the NYTimes.) Rudnick, Gleason, stenographers, no Geller, Blandy, or Altmann.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what people said, were really thinking, or wanted to say but won’t until they save enough money from their administrative job to put their kids through college. Nothing is a quote unless in ” “.

Act I:

Rudnick: Memo from Dean on raises is not done but I will email it when ready. Start with financial context for the raise.

JMoffit will present: Unusual that we would make an offer in the middle of bargaining, but we are desperate to make some friends among the faculty and think we can buy a few of you cheap. We have so much uncertainty about resources, don’t know appropriation, fees, etc. Only thing we really know is that we are going to pay Bean $320K next year to do nothing, $2 million on the jock box, $467K for Mac Court, $2.6 million for Espy’s consultants, and $700,000 or so for Rudnick and her helper lawyers.

More seriously, PERS increases are needed to pay off Bellotti’s $500K a year. We want a more regularized program for raises, and this tiny program is the best we can do, because faculty pay is the least important and most flexible part of our budget, and because Gottfredson has completed abandoned Lariviere’s efforts to get us up to to AAU peers as “job number one.”

Cost of Gottfredson proposal. $11.4 million annualized – that includes admin raises, of course. $8.4m in salary, rest benefits. Faculty overall get %5.7 million in salary, BU members get about $4.5M (annualized).

Costs: We are going to need to start hiring new faculty (15 net per year – Berdahl claimed it would be 60.) Buildings, PERS ($14.5M) health care $3M, so there won’t by much left over for you faculty. And we have no plans to try and cut our out of control administrative spending and athletic subsidies. Debt, utilities, $5M in recurring costs. Add it up, $35 million in new costs. “I don’t mean to scare people”. Please Jamie, stop talking to the faculty this way.

Revenue: $9-$12M in new tuition. We’ve been bringing this in and pumping this into fund balances, as Bunsis has discovered. We project to add $14M to these balances next year. So $24M in new revenue, plus a bit more if UO Matters finds the other hidden jock subsidies.

But expenses will rise long term, and we want to spend that money on cops and so on, not invest in you faculty.

Mauer: Thanks for the info, we appreciate the fact that you have reconsidered your previous rejection of our proposal for interim raises:

Bunsis: Why do you call 1.5% a COLA? Moffitt: I’m no economist, we just thought is sounded better than “Across the Board”. Bunsis: Have you looked at comparable AAU universities, like Lariviere did. Moffitt: No. We spend that money already. Bunsis: No plan: Gleason: We had a plan, Lariviere was fired, and we are going to use that as an excuse to keep your salaries as low as we can. Mauer: Do you still have the intent of getting faculty to AAU averages? Rudnick: snippy and evasive. Bunsis: Will this increase in your analysis move salaries toward AAU? Rudnick: I’m not going to tell you. I just want you to accept this, or not. Mauer: Let me explain. You have a 2 part proposal, that allows external equity negotiations. So it’s legitimate to ask if you care about if it effects external equity. Rudnick: Move salaries up to “what you define as your AAU comparators”.

Me: This is big news, Rudnick admits UO is giving up on AAU, hence giving up on Lariviere raise plan.

Bunsis: How did you calculate benefits? 35%! Rudnick says PERS, but she doesn’t understand it. Health costs are fixed, not a function of pay.

For new hires PERS is 12.5%, add in 7.51% FICA for the portion under the $~110K SocSec ceiling. 1.5% for the part above. Call it 19%.

For pre 1996 hires, PERS is 22.5% plus FICA = 30% max, call it 28%.

Overall, call benefits 25% of raises, not 35%.

Moffitt now tries to confuse people by combining the 2 years of costs and saying it will cost 5%. Actually, 1% this year, 5.15% or so in future years.

Bunsis: What sort of reserves do you really need? Moffitt: “Can I take a break?” She then walks out. One of the weirder responses to a simple question that I’ve ever seen.

Rudnick: We are not here to debate, we’re here to answer questions! (Bunsis just asked a question, Jamie response was to try and leave.)

Mauer and Rudnick: Back and forth while Rudnick tries to weasel out of having Jamie answer a straight question. “Never mind… ” “Break time….”

Act II: 

Moffitt’s back.

Mauer: Clarification: If we accept proposal, what is still subject to negoations? Rudnick: 13 is closed. 14 is anything except ATB and Merit and internal equity adjustments. Floors and external equity are still open along with things like leaves, sabbaticals. FY 15 everything is on the table.

Moffitt: Things are different here in Oregon. We have carry-forward balances in schools and departments. Includes ASA, etc. Policy is that we need a fund balance of between 5-15% of operating revenue. (Jamie never made athletics do this, of course.) We are just above the maximum at 15.8% Huh? So Bunsis is right, UO is sitting on $70M. Where is it – not in my ASA!

Bunsis: Some accounting stuff on unrestricted net assets. What’s the standard? Moffitt: that’s all on OUS. Mauer: We appreciate the information. Rudnick: Can Jamie leave? Bunsis: How do you deal with the swap gain on new hires? You’re calling new hires a cost, but you’re overstating the cost. Gleason: You’re numbers are drastically exaggerated! Moffitt: I haven’t calculated this, but I could. Green: Gender salary differences? Gleason: We do track that, will get it do us. Green: What about the rest of the data you’ve been promising to get for us? Rudnick: We took that job over from Randy because he wan’t doing anything, so call us and we’ll charge you $400 and hour to do his job.

Rudnick: Yes, address all future information requests to us, because Randy has completely lost it.

Exit: Wolf, Moffitt, Shelton.

Act III:

Mauer: How will we do merit for NTTF’s? Rudnick: Dept’s must submit memo on merit policies by end of March. Need to include NTTF stuff. Gleason: Trust us, we will require a justifiable rational process. “We will account for the rhythm of academic life.”  “We are trying to figure out how to raise faculty salaries. It is extremely frustrating to hear you challenge our intent!” Mauer: Thanks, that’s refreshing.

Of course they want to raise our salaries, it’s just that it is not our administration’s top priority. Siphoning tuition money off for the Jock Box, Matt court parking, Mac court, athletic overhead subsidies, sabbaticals for Bean, maintaining Jamie’s 15.8% reserve, etc., all come first.

Cecil: We proposed 3.5% raises months ago. Rudnick: We had to wait til now because we had to pay off all our other costs first – you guys get what’s leftover. So, you gonna take it? Cecil: You say you are trying to be collegial, so why won’t you talk with us about the terms?

Rudnick: We are sorry we sprung this on you. The possibility of raises came up suddenly after Bean got fired. If you can get Geller and me fired too, maybe you’ll get more. Gleason: “This is urgent, we have to start the process now” because we stonewalled for so long.

Rudnick: We hope we give you a memo today, maybe we can then have a secret conference call to talk through any issues.

Quick break. We’re not going to get a resolution on the puddle raises today.

Mauer: Union counter on grievance proposal. I’m snoozing.

Art 6: Union counter on dues deductions: Admin doesn’t want to be responsible for deducting the proportion of dues that go to union politicking, e.g. lobbying Salem for more higher ed money, claiming that’s too complicated for HR to do. Nope, it’s simpler for HR to do it. (Not to say it’s the right thing, just that it’s simpler.) Rudnick: Suppose a faculty member with a religious objection sues us for deductions. Cecil and Rudnick. More back and forth. Union’s lawyers are cheaper than your $400 an hour, we are not going to pay you. Drop dead. Rudnick: I’ll think about that. Mauer: standard language. Rudnick: I understand you don’t want to write a blank check, I get it, will consider.

Art 8: Union counter on non-discrimination. Snoozer.

Art 5: Union counter on Union Rights: Union is giving up right to make a presentation to new employees? Why? I sure wish someone had explained what the hell is going on with our administration back when I got hired. Instead I got a lecture from Lorraine Davis.

The End.

The Financial Condition of the University of Oregon

Today, 3/6/13. I’ll try and live blog it. The union’s need to respond to Gottfredson’s mini-raise ultimatum by next week has raised the stakes for this considerably.

Wednesday, March 6:
3:30pm – 5:00pm
Lawrence Hall 115

3/2/13: Our JH contacts report that their bosses are going to plead poverty when the Union starts putting forward salary proposals in a few weeks. AAUP lawyer and forensic accountant Howard Bunsis has been tasked with searching their pockets. This will be his third trip to UO, during his last two he ran circles around VPFA Frances Dyke and Interim Provost Bean with his data and presentations. New VPFA Jamie Moffitt is a tougher nut, given her years of experience hiding Duck athletic department subsidies from the faculty. But my money is on Bunsis. And so is yours.

The union post is here, check out one of these events:

TWO EVENTS on Wednesday, March 6:
LUNCH ROUNDTABLENoon – 1:30pm
McKenzie Hall 375
***RSVP by Monday, March 4 to info@uauoregon.org***
PUBLIC PRESENTATION3:30pm – 5:00pm
Lawrence Hall 115

Mullens must now pay all of "The Cleaner’s" fees

2/27/13: The academic side is finally off the hook for the 50% we’d been covering out of tuition money.

We’ve written a fair amount on UO General Counsel Randy Geller charging the academic side half the cost of “The Cleaner” Mike Glazier’s work on the Chip Kelly / Willie Lyles recruiting infraction.

Here are the latest accounting statements. It takes 5 minutes to run these off – but it took a month to get them from Dave Hubin’s public records office. Note the date in the corner: 11-Feb-2013. Hubin sat on them for 15 days after they were ready. Full doc dump here.

And check the text in the lower left. The athletics department only paid half of the cost of Chip Kelly’s lawyer through November 2012. The academic side paid the other $75,000 or so. But for the December invoice, it looks like athletics paid it all.

Why the change? Because I raised a stink. Not as big a deal as the $555K a year in overhead payments I finally got Jamie Moffitt to admit they owed us, but every little bit helps. Next let’s go after the $1.83M in Jock Box subsidies and the second mortgage on Mac Court that Frohnmayer and Kilkenny stuck us with, for $467K a year. Only 26 more years of payments.

Of course UO “Faculty Athletics Representative” and athletic department shill Jim O’Fallon still refuses to share any information about the infractions settlement efforts with the UO Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. A violation of UO Senate rules, and our shared governance constitution and another example of the loss of institutional control by UO over its athletic department. Hubin wants $386.62 before he’ll show those docs:

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “any and all documents received by the university — the president’s office, the athletic director’s office, the athletic department’s compliance office — from the NCAA regarding a “Notice of Allegations” from Dec. 21, 2012-Jan. 19, 2012. This would include the actual “Notice of Allegations” and any accompanying documents, in any form, as well as emails, memos, letters, notes regarding the same” on 01/23/2013, attached. The office has at least some documents responsive to your request.  By this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests.

The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $386.62. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon for that amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure.  Your check may be sent to the attention of Office of Public Records, 6207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-6207.

Glazier through Nov:

Through Dec:

Guns, and Jamie Moffitt searches for new Police Chief

Ad here. Anyone know who’s on this search committee? The inside candidate is Pete Deshpande. Ms Moffitt’s non-explanation of why she suddenly fired Public Safety Director Doug Tripp is here. Tripp apparently has a new job in Florida, which will should save us $90K or so on the year’s severance pay. And the latest transparency update from police.uoregon.edu is here – it’s from Francis Dyke, in Jan 2010. Brings back some memories, that does.

Last I checked UO was paying its public safety director more than the City of Eugene was paying its Police Chief Pete Kearns. Presumably the push for guns will yield another big raise. No worries, Moffitt has plenty of money for this sort of stuff, and is happy to spend it if it will make her job easier. Just don’t ask her to help pay the startup for some physics professor.

Will UO arm the new police? I think it’s inevitable. Read this 2011 report from the University Risk Management and Insurance Association. It boils down to this:

  • yes, armed police means a risk of a lawsuit if your police shoot someone
  • but unarmed police means a risk of a lawsuit because someone gets shot buy a disgruntled graduate student whom armed police could have stopped
  • there’s no clear evidence as to which risk is greater, but most campuses our size have armed police
  • in a lawsuit, the “everyone else is doing it” defense carries a lot of weight

1/31/2013.