More pablum from President Gottfredson

10/8/2013:

We have a tremendous opportunity now to elevate the UO’s position among the finest research universities in the world and affirm our promise of access and excellence. Together, we must seize this opportunity to focus intently on the pursuit of discovery and innovation at the highest levels; to guarantee the degrees our students earn carry the weight of significant achievement and the power of a reputation that distinguishes us among our peers; to ensure that the acquisition of a UO degree remains within reach for Oregon students; and to continue to bring the best minds in the world to Oregon to enhance the quality of life for everyone.

From http://president.uoregon.edu/content/embracing-change-move-university-oregon-forward. Thanks to a skeptical alumnus for the link.

And speaking of skepticism, here’s a piece from pro publica on the general move by state universities away from state control:

“Some of these flagships would like to make decisions that benefit their own financial future and give them the ability to build posh dining halls or giant stadiums or create new nanotechnology centers,” Garland said, “when what really may be more needed than that is simply providing a high-quality rigorous college education for legions of students in the state who can’t afford that now and have no place to go and get it.”

Bad news on future pay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest admin contracts

9/25/2013 update: A simple request like this used to take a few days. Almost 2 weeks, and still no response.

9/16/2013 update: Another year, and a few more boxes and arrows. The new and improved org chart is here. Dave Hubin has said “If we get a request for a contract, we’ll just sent it out.” Let’s check up on that:

Subject: public records request, admin contracts
Date: September 13, 2013 8:28:04 PM PDT
To: Lisa Thornton
Cc: Dave Hubin
Dear Ms Thornton – 
This is a public records request for copies of the current employment contracts for
  • Interim Dean Scott Coltrane
  • Former Dean Jim Bean
  • VPEI Yvette Alex-Assensoh
  • VP for Advancement Michael Andreassen
  • VPSA Robin Holmes
  • VP for Enrollment Roger Thompson
  • VP for R Kimberly Espy
  • VPFA Jamie Moffitt
  • General Counsel Randy Geller
  • Senior VPAA Doug Blandy
  • VPAA Barbara Altman
  • Journalism Dean Doug Blandy
  • Pres Chief of Staff Greg Rikhoff
I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest.


10/4/2012: Forthcoming in the NYT’s Sunday Magazine’s education supplement:


Eugene, Ore: Just eleven months ago the sudden firing of beloved President Richard Lariviere devastated morale on the University of Oregon Campus. But now faculty and student leaders are crediting new President Mike Gottfredson and Interim Provost Jim Bean with initiating a bold new plan for UO’s future.  

“With Richard, everything was outside the box. Gottfredson, on the other hand – well, let’s just say he has spent two months doing some tidy work with his org chart” said one former faculty Senate president. 

The new union leadership has been equally supportive. “After seeing this I’ve got new hope for UO’s future. Sure, competitive pay, space, graduate student support, and some respect from the administration would be nice, but this visionary org chart has already convinced two of my colleagues to reject lucrative outside offers at top 20 schools.”

 One department chair, who asked not to be quoted by name, said “I was one of the 50 out of 50 department heads who voted to tell Pernsteiner and Kitzhaber we did not want Jim Bean to be interim President. But when he showed up at the leadership retreat on Monday and unveiled this we were blown away by all the boxes and how the lines came together right at the source of UO’s past failures. The long silence in the room spoke volumes. Bean has earned his right to be the bottom in that big box.”

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.

    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.

    Bargaining XXXVII: Rudnick wrap-up

    Page down for live-blog, 9/3/2013. Next session Friday, I think 9AM – 4PM. Be there.

    Wrap-up:

    UO’s faculty union bargaining team has played President Gottfredson’s lead negotiator Sharon Rudnick like a screechy fiddle. She has insisted since March that there was no more money, beyond her initial 10.5% offer. The union has now forced her to raise it by significantly more than the 1.25% that dues will cost.

    We’re not yet up to 14.5%, but the AAUP and AFT can take this on the road – deservedly – as proof that a faculty union at a research university can raise faculty salaries by more than enough to cover dues, even in the face of a determined if misguided president.

    Along the way the faculty team has written the missing UO faculty handbook, which our accreditors have been telling the administration to do since 2007. They’ve secured many important protections for NTTF’s. And while Rudnick started the bargaining by threatening that it could take as long as 18 months, the union team has played her out in double-time: not even 8 months so far.
    The unfortunate collateral damage from Ms Rudnick’s incompetence is President Gottfredson’s standing with the faculty. He could have proposed 14.5% in January and taken the credit, instead of the blame, and saved at least $500K in legal bills.


    Today’s synopsis:

    • Over the past 5 months the union has made big economic concessions on wages, from 18.5% to 14.5%. Admin proposals stalled at 10.5% (No compounding).
    • Today we learn that Gottfredson will budge. A little. His offer is still well below Lariviere/Coltrane proposal from 2011.
    • For NTTF’s, the union proposal from last week was for 15.03%, compounded over three years. Admin came back today with 12.4%.
    • For TTF’s, union had last proposed 15%. Admin came back with 11.8%, plus a problematic increase in first post-tenure review raise amounts. This doesn’t address external equity, the focus of the Coltrane plan. And if you just had a review, you’re SOL for 5 years.
    • Admin still refuses to make 1.5% ATB for last year fully retroactive – even though AAU salaries increased 3% last year. 
    • Instead they propose a $350 “signing bonus”. Don’t laugh, you can get some good shit on craiglist for $350. I call dibs on the goat.
    • Who came up with this $350 idea? Presumably Gottfredson’s $20K a month anti-union consultants down in SF, trying to drive a wedge between the TTF’s and NTTF’s.
    • After hearing Rudnick the faculty start leaving the room, presumably to start looking for outside offers.
    • Rudnick says Gottfredson says UO can’t afford more, because of the 3.5% tuition raise cap for next year. 
    • Not true. Every 1% increase in tuition brings in ~$3M, recurring, while a 1% increase in faculty pay costs ~$1M, or a 0.33% tuition increase.
    • Admin team is even more on edge than usual but only one outburst, this time from Gleason.

    Raises: The elevator version:

    We’re going down. During the first year of President Gottfredson’s administration UO faculty pay has fallen still further behind other AAU public universities:

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

    The relative drops are mostly driven by pay raises at the other AAU schools, however UO’s average pay for assistants and fulls has actually fallen, presumably because of composition changes. The retroactive 1.5% ATB raise proposed by the admin’s for 2012-13 is only for 6 months, so it’s really only a 1% raise. Sneaky. Either way it is not close to enough to make up for the ~3% UO faculty lost relative to other AAU publics between Fall 2011 and Fall 2012. Much less enough to get the elevator going up. And the administration has been fibbing: UO benefits don’t make up salary gap.

    Background:

    Their conclusion is that while both effects are at work, Bowen effects dominate in public research universities, with $2 in increases due to administrators seizing on increased revenue for every $1 in increases due to upward pressures on faculty and staff salaries from other industries. Same for private research institutions. What’s more, they find a plausible culprit within universities. They notice that cost increases are likelier when the ratio of staff to faculty is higher. That suggests that when administrators within the university accumulate bargaining power, they’re better able to force increases in costs. The administrative staff, they suggest, is what’s really driving this.

    By administrative staff, they presumably mean central administrators like Jim “38%” Bean. Say Jim, any update on how much our administration is going to piss away in Portland this year? Thanks to an anonymous reader for the link. From the WaPo’s excellent “The Tuition is Too Damn High” series.

    Lots of rumors flying around – and I didn’t start all of them – that the administration’s haste to wrap up bargaining is motivated in part by a desire to get the economics off the table before the latest administrative bloat data comes out:

    From: Bill Harbaugh
    Subject: public records request, non-classified employees
    Date: September 1, 2013 11:55:21 PM PDT
    To: Lisa Thornton Cc: J P Monroe , jbolas@uoregon.edu, Andrea Larson , cmatese@uoregon.edu, gvenegas@uoregon.edu

    Dear Ms Thornton:

    This is a public records request for a machine readable file in excel, comma delimited, or any other standard format showing the following information for UO non-classified employees as of 9/3/2013:

    First Name, Last Name, MI, University Email Address, University Office Address, University Office Phone Area Code, University Office Phone Number, Employee Type, Academic Title, Job Type, Job Title Job Start Date, Yrs in Position, Fac Prim Activity, Home Department, Rank, Rk Date, Pay Department, Annual Salary Rate, Appt Percent Job Status, Job End Date, Appointment Status, Term of Service, EEO Type, FT/PT

    I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest.

    I’m ccing a few people in the UO IR office, who should be able to easily provide these data.

    The prior data on this is from the error ridden Beangrams, and the most excellent presentations of the AAUP’s Howard Bunsis. March 2013 update for UO here:

    “Institutional Support” means central administration, more or less.

    More background:

    Rumor from the spectators at the annual faculty club ping-pong semi-finals is that Gottfredson has told Geller and Rudnick to stop their $100K a month billing frenzy and cut a deal, quick. The large faculty turnout at the Thursday meeting had its intended effect, and Rudnick’s flip-out didn’t hurt either.

    Rudnick will apparently meet with Gottfredson et al at 9AM to get his instructions. As you can see from the spreadsheet below the union has already come down from 19.3% over 3 years (compounded) to 15%, and has made concessions on health, childcare, and promotion raises as well. The majority of the faculty I’ve talked with feel that if the union offer is not acceptable to Gottfredson as is, we should strike during week one.

    Synopsis from session XXXVI, Thursday 8/29:

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

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

    Proposals so far:




    Live Blog:

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

    12:55: Admin team filing in. ~50 faculty, kids, etc. Approaching fire code limit. Any volunteers to move Rudnick’s chair?

    1:05 Rudnick: Thanks for delay, we have economic proposals and more propaganda about how we already spent your money on athletics and pet admin projects.

    Art 24 Leaves, admin counter:

    Rudnick: Go forth and multiply. We’ll give dual family leaves if both parents are UO employees. Admin relents on Ebenezeer clause: Officers of instruction can now leave for xmas and spring break without getting pay docked.

    Art 31 Release time, admin counter:

    Rudnick: Union gets 2.5 FTE for officers, extra 2.0 FTE for bargaining, and can buy course releases based on salary, OPE, admin costs, facilities use.

    Mauer: Why not charge us the replacement cost? Rudnick: It’s not replacement cost. Mauer: Why not? Rudnick: blah, blah. (She’s an expert on bill padding issues, be careful here Mike.)

    Art 20, Salary, admin counter:

    See the spreadsheet, admin proposal is very weak.

    Caucus break. Union team leaves. 

    Admin’s and ~50 faculty stay. I start giving a thoughtful, fact-based discussion of the admin proposal, using the spreadsheet above, with a few illustrative examples such as:

    Proposal: $350 one time signing bonus. This goes over like a lead brick. Jim Bean’s been getting $775 a month for his beamer payments:

    Rudnick interrupts, saying I’ve got something wrong, but won’t answer when I ask her for details. Faculty start ripping into the admin proposal, asking her questions. She won’t answer them either.

    Union team returns, tells Rudnick we’re moving this to Room 101. We do. Session restarts:

    Gleason: While you were in caucus, the people in the bargaining room, including your economic consultant (me) were ridiculing this proposal. This is unacceptable, and I’m a journalism dean so I know all about that so called free-speech stuff.

    Mauer: So, you want to talk about it? (I’m right there Tim. Why not send me another harassing fact check letter?)

    Gleason: No.

    Rudnick: Long bit about $350 being an attempt to split off the NTTF’s and divide and conquer. Gives a bit more to the lower classes. She tries to explain her math, Cecil finds a few errors.

    Rudnick: No changes to your merit proposal. We cut your equity proposal for NTTF’s because of something the finance people said. Then she adds “Don’t ask me any details” and “It’s all in the details.” (Why didn’t Jamie Moffitt show up for this crucial bargaining session? Because the administration doesn’t have enough respect for the faculty to make the trip over from JH).

    Cecil: 2% is not enough to get NTTF’s to $36K floor.

    Rudnick: We think it is enough. But it’s all in the details and don’t ask me any details.

    Promotion raises:

    Rudnick: We accept the union’s 8% promotion raises for NTTFs. Currently there is no policy for this, so it’s a significant increase.

    Rudnick: For CAS, post tenure review typically gets $2k or $4K, we’ll boost that to 4% or 8% in order to give more equity and merit. (Note, however, that this is only for the *first* post-tenure review after the contract is signed. Among the many problems with this proposal is its hit or miss nature: had an excellent review last year? You will wait 5 years to try again for your raise.)

    Rudnick: Here’s our spreadsheet, with cost increases, estimates promotion and post tenure review increases will result in $3.5M or so in new costs. Pratt: So, these are just for first post-tenure reviews? Rudnick: Yes, because …. Pratt finishes for her: Because that would increase faculty salaries.

    Why isn’t our $270K a year (plus football junkets) VPFA Jamie Moffitt here to explain this proposal?

    Rudnick: This is a significant proposal. We worked very hard to try to put some significant extra money on the table. There was a very long discussion in JH this AM on how to fund this. (Uh, cut athletic subsidies and drop the $2.4M Portland White Stag lease, for starters?)

    Rudnick: We hope you see this as meeting you in the middle. Oh yeah, we didn’t have time to do the compounding, check UO Matters.

    Mauer: Back to floors. Pool is 2%. You don’t know if that’s enough to get NTTF’s all to $36K?

    Rudnick: We’re looking at different groups individually and looking at other possible permutations on how to fairly set floors. They’ve run a bunch of scenarios. Their sense is it’s enough to get to a fair outcome.

    Mauer: What if there’s money leftover? Rudnick: We’d spend it on beamers for the administration.

    Braun: Can we see your scenarios? Rudnick: Starts waiving her hands, it’s back of the envelope, … It’s just somebody in accounting doing if this and that.

    Braun: But it did inform your proposal? Cecil: I’ve seen assertions that admin is saying it would be unreasonable to pay RA’s $36k?

    Rudnick: UO research grants are falling, less than came in last year, might lead to layoffs. Rudnick starts passing around her spreadsheet, with costs, talking about it. She shortchanged us on copies, I’ll post as soon as I get one. She babbles on.

    Pissed off looking faculty start leaving the room, making calls for outside offers. 

    Rudnick: Post-tenure reviews will be reviewed outside the department, by Gottfredson, before you get the 8%.

    Retirement: Rudnick asks union for ideas on how to deal with the pickup. Uh, they did that already, Sharon.

    In conclusion:

    Rudnick: President and Provost are putting themselves on the line for this proposal. It will take reorganization, re-prioritization, maybe even cuts or postponement of hiring of new strategic communicators and brand manager hires. She was just kidding on that last part, I’m sure.

    Caucus break. 

    Cecil stays, gives the ~40 or so remaining faculty an impressive off the top of his head talk on bargaining, dissecting the admin proposal, comparing it with what the union is asking for.

    They’re back. 6 die hard faculty observers left.

    Contracts: Snoozer. And no, it’s not because it’s about the NTTF’s, it’s because Cecil and Mauer are on this. Just kick back folks, they have your back.

    Wait – Blandy is going to reduce the amount of notice and pay they need to give NTTF’s. Current policy is too expensive. So, are you going to do the same for administrators, Doug?

    7/31/2013: Back in July 2011 UO got in trouble with the State auditors for post-dating Frohnmayer’s retirement contracts and no bothering to specify what work he’d done for the money. Then Bean got in trouble with Davis for hiring his buddy John Moseley for an extended post-retirement gig without bothering to write a contract. Davis had to write another retroactive one while Bean was on sabbatical, and she chewed out Bean for it. Then in April 2013 Gottfredson announced Bean would “return to the faculty effective 7/1/2013” And now Bean is working for UO without a contract – if he’s still working for UO that is. From the UO Public Records Office yesterday: 

    The university does not possess documents responsive to your request for “a copy of the current employment contract(s) for James C. Bean“.  The office considers this information to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter.  Thank you for contacting the office with your request. 

    My April 2012 request for docs on the unusual deals between Bean and Moseley, including the retroactive contract and Davis email, was quickly followed by Bob Berdahl’s clampdown on public records releases, which has continued under President Gottfredson. I did get the response above without having to pay a fee, but it took 11 days

    Long back and forth between Cecil and Rudnick on job security, raises for NTTFs. Not a word from VPAA Doug Blandy, who is supposedly in charge of all this. Bizarre.

    Q: Do all UO departments give NTTF’s the opportunity for career-track jobs?

    Rudnick: Pres wants the flexibility to replace NTTF’s with TTF’s.

    Cecil: So, if we come back with a proposal that says you can cut for that, but no other reasons, will you agree to it?

    Rudnick: Seems to be saying no.

    Next session this Friday – not sure if it starts at 9AM or 10AM.

    … and his whole kingdom into desolation.

    8/30/2013: President Gottfredson’s faculty supporters – OK, make that his faculty supporter – have argued for that past year that, after getting his UO Board, he would finally turn his efforts to cleaning up Johnson Hall.

    Replacing Bean was a good first step, and rumors tonight down at the faculty yacht club’s map room are that more substantial changes are on the way, perhaps accelerated by his anger over the “University of Nike” humiliation. We’ll see how far it goes:

    Gottfredson gives powerful statement supporting transparency and faculty role in finance and athletics

    8/22/2013: This is great news. I know some skeptics will say these are just words, but they are powerful ones, made with force and commitment. For me, this goes a long way towards erasing many of the concerns that the faculty and the press have been raising about President Gottfredson’s leadership, and the direction he has been taking UO. Quoting:

    Proper shared governance expects competency and places responsibility for the nature and care of the central mission of the university with the faculty. … In my view, the administrative governance responsibilities only work when important policies and practices are informed by consultation and advice from the faculty, staff and students. Such consultation and advice can only be meaningful if it takes place in a spirit of transparency and knowledge and in a timely manner. There’s not much use in consulting after the fact – or not much use consistent with these ideas of governance, anyway. 

    So there’s an essential advisory role for the senate, even on administrative matters – an essential role on those matters that are central to the execution of our mission, like budget and finance, space and capital planning, athletics and of course participation in the selection and the evaluation of academic administrators.

    Full text on the President’s website, here.

    Oh wait, never mind. This is from Gottfredson’s introductory speech to the Senate, last October. Turns out he didn’t mean it.

    President to step down after faculty no-confidence vote. Board introduces shared governance reforms

    8/15/2013: That would be the president of NYU. NY Times reporter Ariel Kaminer dismisses prior claims by the chairman of their Board of Trustees Martin Lipton that this had nothing to do with faculty discontent, and gets to the heart of the matter, namely the effect on NYU’s bond rating:

    New York University said on Wednesday that it would no longer lend money to top employees to buy vacation homes and would grant faculty members more participation in school decisions, part of a slate of changes designed to lower tensions between the university’s leaders and its rank-and-file professors. The university also announced that its president, John Sexton, who has been the subject of five no-confidence votes by the faculty this year, would step down once his term ends in 2016.

    The changes, which emerged from a series of meetings that a group of trustees held with faculty and staff members, administrators and students, are the first concessions by the trustees since the faculty rebellion began in March with a no-confidence vote in the College of Arts and Science, N.Y.U.’s largest school. … 

    In addition to a distaste for the recent vitriol, some of which has been directed at him personally, Mr. Lipton also has a practical reason to seek harmony: faculty morale can sometimes influence a university’s credit rating, and a drop in rating would make it more expensive for N.Y.U. to borrow for its planned 2 million-square-foot expansion in Greenwich Village. Though N.Y.U.’s credit rating has not suffered, he said, “I think if faculty unrest were to continue unabated it could have an effect.”

    Wow. Here at UO, the faculty is fighting with President Gottfredson over a modest proposal from the faculty union for merit and external equity raises that had originally been scheduled for implementation in 2011. A motion for a vote of no-confidence in Gottfredson over governance issues was introduced in the university Senate in late spring, but was not brought to the floor.

    And Kitzhaber’s recommendations for appointments to the new UO Board of Trustees should be public Monday. The board’s main powers? Issuing bonds, and hiring and firing the UO president.

    It will be an interesting fall quarter – maybe we’ll even make it into the NYT for something other than being “The University of Nike”.

    Gottfredson’s secret performance review included secret 5-year budget forecasts

    8/6/2013: It now takes months and hundreds of dollars to get public records from UO. OUS is quicker, but often no cheaper. Both adjust their pace to the politics. And apparently Gottfredson’s performance has now become a political issue for OUS.

    I sent OUS a follow-up request for information about President Gottfredson’s performance review on Saturday. On Monday I got a call from their public records officer, Chuck Triplett, and he sent me this pdf showing the information they asked Gottfredson and the other OUS presidents to submit for their evaluations.

    The meat – which Gottfredson and VPFA Jamie Moffitt have hidden from the faculty, while telling us and UO’s academic accreditors that they are being transparent about financial information, is in bold:

    On February 15, 2013, the Governance and Policy Committee further clarified that OUS presidents should address the following topics in their annual Executive Session evaluation discussions with the Board:   

    1. Progress toward meeting Board goals and 40-40-20
    2. Connections with other universities, K-12, and community colleges
    3. Progress toward meeting the president’s goals for the year
    4. Big issues on campus in the past year
    5. Major achievements and critical challenges in the past year
    6. Opportunities for the future and clouds on the horizon
    7. Hopes and goals for the upcoming year
    8. 5-yr financial forecast for the education and general fund complete with projected enrollment, tuition, cost, and fund balance

    I’m still trying to find out if Gottfredson made any effort to solicit feedback from the UO community regarding his performance. Triplett says OUS has no record of that.

    8/3/2013: OK, they won’t show us the results of President Gottfredson’s evaluation, but at least the questions are public records. Right?

    Dear Mr. Triplett: 

    On July 30th I made a public records request to you, asking for UO President Gottfredson’s 2013 self-evaluation and for the Chancellor’s evaluation of his performance. Thank you for the prompt response saying that your office would not release these, on the grounds that they are confidential faculty records. This is a follow-up to that request.
    I am asking for public records that show: 

    a) Emails, letters, or other documents showing communications between your office and President Gottfredson or his staff, on whether or not OUS should release his self-evaluation or the Chancellor’s evaluation, in response to my 7/30 request. 

    b) Documents showing what information OUS asked President Gottfredson to provide for his self-evaluation, and what questions or issues he was asked to address. 

    c) Any emails, survey forms or other communications from OUS asking for input on President Gottfredson’s performance review.  

    For b) and c) I am not asking for responses, just for documents showing how OUS conducted their evaluation of President Gottfredson, such as what questions were asked and who was invited to participate. 

    I ask that these documents be redacted only to the minimal extent allowable by law. I request a fee waiver on the basis of public interest, in evidence of which I note that these sorts of documents are often made public by the President, e.g. the evaluation for the University of Kentucky President, at http://www.uky.edu/Trustees/agenda/full/2012/julyspecial/Presidential_Eval_final.pdf. I also note that information on faculty performance, e.g. student teaching reviews, is often made public at no charge. 

    8/1/2013: That was quick. Presumably this means they asked President Gottfredson if he wanted to make his evaluation public, and he said no. I’d email him myself, but he doesn’t answer emails. Maybe a reporter will ask next time he talks to the press. Oh, right, Gottfredson doesn’t talk to reporters either.

    The Oregon University System, Office of the Chancellor is in receipt of your July 30, 2013 public records request for “…a copy of UO President’s Gottfredson’s 2013 self-evaluation and the OUS Chancellor’s written performance evaluation discussed in section 7 of his contract…”   The Oregon University System respectfully declines to provide any records pursuant to this request.  Evaluation materials, including self-evaluation
    documents, are confidential faculty records under Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 580, Division 22, section 60 through 125.  Faculty records as described under these administrative rules are not public records under law.  (See Oregon Revised Statute 351.065(12):  “Any category of personnel records specifically designated as confidential pursuant to valid rules or orders pursuant to this section is not a public record for the purposes of ORS 192.420.”)  The Chancellor’s Office treats the presidential personnel file, including evaluation documents, as confidential faculty records not subject to disclosure.

    Sincerely,

    Charles L. Triplett III
    Secretary of the Board
    Oregon University System
    P.O. Box 751
    Portland, OR 97207-0751
    503-725-5717

    7/30/2013: His self evaluation was due June 1, and interim Chancellor Rose’s report is presumably complete by now. From his contract with OUS:

    At many universities these are public as a matter of course. The first year evaluation for President Eli Capilouto at the University of Kentucky is a good example. 44 page report here:

    I’m on the UO Senate, I don’t remember hearing a word about an evaluation for President Gottfredson. So let’s see what’s out there, with a public records request to OUS:

    Dear Mr. Triplett

    This is a public records request for a copy of UO President’s Gottfredson’s 2013 self-evaluation and the OUS Chancellor’s written performance evaluation discussed in section 7 of his contract, available here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/971644/uomatters/Gottfredson/2012%20Gottfredson%20contract.pdf
    I ask that these documents be redacted only to the minimal extent allowable by law. I request a fee waiver on the basis of public interest, in evidence of which I note that these sorts of documents are often made public by the President, e.g. the evaluation for the University of Kentucky President, at http://www.uky.edu/Trustees/agenda/full/2012/julyspecial/Presidential_Eval_final.pdf

    Gottfredson on "Establishing an Institutional Board for the UO"

    8/3/2013: From the comments, a petition to keep Frohnmayer and Knight off the UO Board: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/keep-phil-knight-and.fb28?source=s.icn.fb&r_by=1874212

    8/2/2013: Sounds like he got chewed out by Kitzhaber’s office, over the process UO used to select nominees for the board. Other than that his email is the usual drivel. If you want substance watch Ed Ray, here.

    Dear Colleagues,  

    In July, the Oregon State Legislature passed Senate Bill 270, which establishes an institutional governing board structure for the University of Oregon and other Oregon universities.  

    A local board dedicated to our campus and our students—with a focus on the University of Oregon’s role in the state’s vision for higher education—will create new efficiencies in our operations, leverage new support for innovation and research, and open the doors to new philanthropic opportunities. With the support of a board focused on the individual mission of our university and intimately connected to our campus, we will work together to provide Oregon students with access to a top-tier education at one of the nation’s premier public research universities.  

    The legislation establishes institutional governing boards for the UO and Portland State University and provides Oregon State University with the option of establishing a board, which it has elected to do. It also lays out a process for the state’s other four universities to establish boards in the future. This structure supports the distinct mission of each university and enhances our ability to provide Oregonians with a diverse range of quality higher education opportunities.  

    The UO’s 11- to 15-member public board will be appointed by Governor Kitzhaber later this month and confirmed by the Oregon Senate in September. The board will be installed and invested with authorities involving the management of the university in July 2014.  

    The Governor’s Office has sought suggestions for board nominees from the university, the student government president, the University Senate president, the Oregon Student Association, and others. Earlier this week, the Governor’s Office released a list of names submitted thus far. As the governor has requested, I encourage members of our campus community to provide additional suggestions. All who are interested may review the application requirements and process on the governor’s website.  

    I am confident that a robust list of applicants will result in a Board of Trustees for the University of Oregon that includes the skills, talents, and expertise to guide our public mission and financial future, and represents the diversity of our state. I look forward to working together with you and with the new board to strengthen our university and higher education in the state of Oregon.
    Regards,
    Michael Gottfredson
    President

    Update: Gottfredson gets Geller to move on Rudnick invoices

    8/1/2013 update: That was back in April, for the Jan, Feb and March invoices.

    Now UO is stonewalling again. Almost 2 months since I asked Dave Hubin and Randy Geller for the April, May, and June invoices for Rudnick, and the other firms advising the admin bargaining team. The DOJ PR manual says 2 weeks, start to finish, is a reasonable time to wait for the documents. It took more than a month just to get an estimate from UO. I paid the $214.50 2 weeks ago – thanks for your contributions. No documents yet, and no response to follow up emails. So I’ve filed another petition with Lane County DA Alex Gardner’s office:

    It has now been more than 7 weeks since I made this public records request, and 2 weeks since I paid the fee requested by UO’s Public Records Office. 

    I have not received any documents. UO PR Officer Lisa Thornton, her supervisor Dave Hubin, and UO General Counsel Randy Geller have not responded to follow up emails. The 7/2 response from UO’s PR office denies my fee waiver request, but does not explain why. 

    Therefore this is a petition to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, asking that he
    a) treat this delay as a denial and order UO to produce these invoices without further delay, and  

    b) order UO to provide an explanation for their fee waiver denial that is consistent with the requirement of Oregon’s public records law.

    4/11/2013: After the Bellotti affair it really shouldn’t be necessary to hassle the UO President about getting his general counsel to obey Oregon’s public records law. But apparently it is.

    20 days and $300 after making the request, and 8 hours after sending the email below, I finally got the rather erratically redacted invoices showing how much UO has paid Dave Frohnmayer’s HLGR firm to negotiate with the UO faculty union. Full dump here – if you see anything interesting let me know. More on this later, but here’s a snippet from the hefty January bill. Looks like Dave’s giving us a discount from his usual $550 rate:

    From: Bill Harbaugh
    Subject: Fwd: fee for HLGR invoices
    Date: April 11, 2013 9:24:53 AM PDT
    To: Michael Gottfredson
    Cc: Randy Geller , doug park , Kron Michael Michael C , PERLOW Patty , Sharon Rudnick , Robert Kyr , Margaret Paris
    Dear President Gottfredson:
    I’m writing to ask you to direct your General Counsel’s office to quickly produce the invoices for the law firms advising your administration on union bargaining. As you can see from the email below, I requested the documents more than two weeks ago, and I promptly paid the $300 fee. 
    UO’s public records office was originally established by President Lariviere with direct reporting to him, after the previous General Counsel got in trouble for not responding to requests. Lariviere noted the obvious conflict of interest in giving the General Counsel’s office the ability to delay responses to public records requests that involved its own activities. The GC’s delays in responding to public records requests  about the Bellotti contracts ultimately cost UO a lot of money and credibility.
    I think this is an example of the same sort of thing happening again. I ask that you instruct your GC to fill this request promptly, and that you establish procedures ensuring that the Public Records Office has sufficient power to avoid future instances of these delaying tactics.
    Thanks,
    Bill Harbaugh

    UO Matters suspends publication after 4 years of UO muckraking

    7/29/2013: Great news. The university has finally published a comprehensible budget, a strategic plan, and information on future spending priorities. 114 pages, starting with a fact-filled letter from the President, followed with detailed reports on what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved from the 2009 academic plan. There’s even a chart showing what still needs to be done to get faculty salaries up to the targets. In addition, the athletic department has agreed to send $3 million back to the university, to use for academic scholarships.This is what UO Matters has been trying to get the UO administration to do since I started blogging in 2009.

    Mission Accomplished – while this blog will remain up for historical reasons, I see no need for future posts or public records requests.

    It’s really quite impressive:

    The full financial and strategic plans and reports are here, press release on the athletic payments here. They’ve even released a 44 page evaluation of the president’s first year on the job, here:

    The president waived confidentiality, releasing the full evaluation:

    Pretty impressive for his first year. Lots of much needed attention to faculty retention, pay, research. Important to get off to a strong start on that.

    Oh wait, never mind. These documents are from President Eli Capilouto at the University of Kentucky, not from UO’s Mike Gottredson.

    Here in Oregon, our academic plan was abandoned by former interim Provost Bean, after his desultory efforts ended with a 2009 draft plan. There have been no updates or meaningful progress reports. There’s been no formal process for the faculty to provide feedback for an evaluation of our president. From what I can tell he’s had no evaluation at all.

    After a year on the job, President Gottfredson’s most transparent statement to the faculty on budget planning is this:

    After months of additional pressure from the faculty union, UO VPFA Jamie Moffitt finally released this mishmash of outdated, irrelevant, incomprehensible, and poorly scanned pdfs:

    Then she walked out of the meeting when the faculty negotiators tried to get her to explain where the money had been going. At the most recent meeting the faculty team asked if they could see the complete UO budget. The hired negotiator for the administration, Sharon Rudnick, said “You can go ahead and ask. See what you get.” Snap.

    The UO Senate has been trying since 2000 to end athletic subsidies and get the UO athletic department to start helping with academic scholarships. Meanwhile their budget has tripled, to $90M. More than at UK. To his credit President Gottfredson has at least responded to the latest effort by the UO Senate, in May 2013. But there’s still no transparent process to get there, much less any action. And our President Gottfredson has allowed Randy Geller and Dave Hubin to put UO’s public records into complete lockdown, with combination of hefty fees, long delays, and excessive redactions. So unfortunately this blog is going have to go on for at least the 2013-2014 academic year.