UO deserves better from president

6/20/2013: Louise Bishop, English and HC and co-chair of the FAC this past year, defends Gottfredson in an op-ed in the RG here, in reaction Gordon Sayre.

6/13/2013: An Op-Ed in the RG by prof of English and former senate president Gordon Sayre:

… We may never know why Lariviere was fired, but it seems obvious where Gottfredson’s priorities lie: He wants a UO board stacked with wealthy donors such as Nike co-founder Phil Knight or his allies. The unstated promise is that these boosters will give millions to the UO that they were unwilling to give before they could be appointed to the board. 

Yet for nearly a decade Knight himself has given money only for UO athletics, not for our academic mission. In light of that history, what should the UO, and Eugene, really expect from an independent UO board? President Gottfredson needs to deal openly with UO faculty, staff and students and clarify his plans and priorities for budgets, tuition, salaries and academic excellence.

If you want to get a glimpse of how Phil Knight, the biggest supporter of an independent UO board, might treat ours, watch this video of this talk at Joe Paterno’s memorial, “Who are the Real Trustees?”:


This Oregonian story reports that Knight has appointed Duck athletics booster Pat Kilkenny as trustee of several Nike stock trusts. Not exactly a good sign for the academic side for anyone who has followed Kilkenny’s successful efforts to use academic money to subsidize sports.

If you want an honest discussion of the pros and cons of independent boards, read this letter from OSU’s president, Ed Ray, or watch this video:


Harry B. Miller should ask for a refund

6/16/2013: Those who have heard Bean babble on about online-ed and MOOCs will love this proposal for MOOAs. (Thanks to commenter for link.)

And by popular demand here’s the budget for LCB: Instructional salary expenditures up 44% since 2008, administrative costs up 194%. And that’s before the $320K + OPE beamer is back on the payroll, and all the new hiring that Dean Kees gets into below. Oh wait, Bean will probably get most of his money from the instructional account. Hilarious.

6/15/2013. I’m speechless. I like the banjo though, even if it’s missing a string ;).

Harry B. “Ham” Miller James C. “Beamer” Bean C. “Kees” de Kluwyer

I’ll get Bean’s contract in July, but I’m guessing he will get $320K, and keep the JH parking spot for his beamer. President Gottfredson should be embarrassed. LCB Dean Kees de Kluyver is shameless. Ham Miller was a central Oregon lumberman, great history and photos of the family business here. Read the entire letter from de Kluwyer on how Bean will escape his teaching responsibilities, and other LCB news:

2.      Jim Bean returns to LCB. As you know, Jim Bean will return to LCB on July 1 as the Harry B. Miller Professor of Business. For this summer and the 2013-2014 academic year Jim will still have significant central administrative responsibilities related to (a) preparing  bylaws and staffing proposals for an independent UO board, (b) developing a systematic plan to enhance the presence at the UO of faculty in scientific and technical fields, especially those with research and teaching interests in transformational areas, (c) shaping UO capital campaign objectives, and (d) continuing the planning for the White Stag facility and development of campus interests in Portland.
Jim will also hold the title of Associate Dean for Interdisciplinary Programs in LCB. In this (part-time) role he will lead the development of a proposal for a Portland-based UO interdisciplinary graduate (Masters) degree program in Sports Product Management. The proposal calls for this cutting edge program to be offered by LCB, in conjunction with faculty from A&AA, SoJC and the Law School. In the development of this proposal, Jim will be working with Ellen Devlin (consultant), Roger Best (Emeritus faculty) and the Warsaw Center faculty and staff on the design of the program, with UO Portland staff on issues of space and administrative support, and with myself, the Deans of A&AA and Journalism, and the UO’s Senior Vice Provost on issues of implementation, staffing and funding.
Full email:
From: Kees de Kluyver <kees@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Thank You for Another Great Year!
Date: June 14, 2013 4:24:13 PM P

Dear Colleagues:
With the academic year coming to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for an outstanding year of accomplishments and wish you a productive and restful summer. I hope to see you at one or more of our graduation ceremonies later today or on Monday. In the meantime, I ask you to carefully read the balance of this message for a few important announcements.  Please do not hesitate to call or visit if you have any questions.
1.      We have two “seniors” in the Dean’s office. Sergio Koreisha and Dave Boush will have the new title of Senior Associate Dean effective July 1. This change was made in view of recent and pending internal organizational changes (John Hull’s promotion to Assistant Dean for Center Operations, Jim Bean’s appointment as a part-time Associate Dean – see below) and to more closely resemble the most prevalent academic structures in peer business schools.  
2.      Jim Bean returns to LCB. As you know, Jim Bean will return to LCB on July 1 as the Harry B. Miller Professor of Business. For this summer and the 2013-2014 academic year Jim will still have significant central administrative responsibilities related to (a) preparing  bylaws and staffing proposals for an independent UO board, (b) developing a systematic plan to enhance the presence at the UO of faculty in scientific and technical fields, especially those with research and teaching interests in transformational areas, (c) shaping UO capital campaign objectives, and (d) continuing the planning for the White Stag facility and development of campus interests in Portland.
Jim will also hold the title of Associate Dean for Interdisciplinary Programs in LCB. In this (part-time) role he will lead the development of a proposal for a Portland-based UO interdisciplinary graduate (Masters) degree program in Sports Product Management. The proposal calls for this cutting edge program to be offered by LCB, in conjunction with faculty from A&AA, SoJC and the Law School. In the development of this proposal, Jim will be working with Ellen Devlin (consultant), Roger Best (Emeritus faculty) and the Warsaw Center faculty and staff on the design of the program, with UO Portland staff on issues of space and administrative support, and with myself, the Deans of A&AA and Journalism, and the UO’s Senior Vice Provost on issues of implementation, staffing and funding.
3.      Two new additions to the BoA. I am pleased to announce two outstanding individuals have joined the BoA:
·         Ross J. Kari recently retired from the position of chief financial officer of Freddie Mac. He held this position since September 2009 and was responsible for the company’s financial controls, accounting, investor relations, financial planning and reporting, tax, capital oversight, and compliance with the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley. Additionally, he oversaw the Investment and Capital Markets division and management of Freddie Mac’s mortgage investment activities.
Ross is a veteran finance executive with broad experience in the mortgage business and financial services industry. Previously, he served as chief financial officer of Fifth Third Bancorp in Cincinnati, Ohio. Before joining Fifth Third, Ross served as executive vice president and CFO of Safeco Corporation in Seattle where he managed a team of 250 financial professionals and helped grow business line revenue while enhancing essential risk management processes. From 2002 to 2006, he served as executive vice president and chief operating officer for another housing government-sponsored enterprise, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco.
Ross spent a large portion of his career at Wells Fargo from 1983 to 2001, during which time he rose from senior financial analyst to executive vice president and chief financial officer. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and earned his MBA in Finance, graduating first in his class, both from the University of Oregon.
·         Merritt Richardson leads NIKE Golf’s efforts to create premium apparel and footwear for modern, athletic golfers around the world.  She is responsible for providing strategic guidance and aligning the creative ideas and energy of a team of product managers, designers and merchandisers against the needs of athletes to drive profitable growth for the business.
Prior to this role, Merritt’s experiences have ranged from administering the annual budget process for the entire company to directing the teams that create footwear for women runners; from a special assignment with the CEO to a stint in NIKE’s renowned Innovation Kitchen to overseeing the Brand’s efforts related to the 2012 London Olympics.
A native Oregonian, Merritt received a B.S. in Business Administration from Oregon State University, but her sport allegiances lie firmly behind the University of Oregon Ducks.  She is currently serving as a board member for the UO Student-Athlete Mentoring Program and is a past board member of the Oregon Club of Portland, which raises awareness and funding for UO Athletics.  She and her family are long-time devoted Duck football supporters, travelling to all games, home and away.
4.      Branding for a capital campaign. Many of you heard the brand story presentation by Chris Van Dyke at our most recent faculty meeting. Chris and the other members of the Songlines team interviewed many of you and generated distinctive themes that can be developed into a compelling message for the college. 
We plan to carry this effort forward so that, with all deliberate speed, we can identify a single differentiating slogan. To this end I have appointed a task force (Dave Boush, John Hull, Jim Engelhardt, Rebecca Monro, Katie Rohrer) whose charge will be to continue the discussion over the summer and into the fall.  They will talk with many of you who were interviewed by Songlines and any of you who wish to weigh in for the first time.
Perhaps most importantly, they will coordinate with Tim Clevenger, the newly-appointed Associate Vice President for Communications, Marketing and Brand Management to align our branding with the University’s efforts. Once we land on a single message, the task force will develop a full marketing communications campaign that we can present to potential donors to roll out in early 2014.
5.      Building Issues. Work on the Chiles Exterior Renovation project will begin on Tuesday, June 18.  For the first week scaffolding and temporary fencing will be installed and other prep work will take place.  The demo work of the bricks is set to begin around June 27.  The Chiles Complex will be closed off during the project with the exception of the IS/IT Offices and Building Management on the 3rd floor of Chiles.  The demolition will be noisy and staff most impacted will be temporarily moved.  Classrooms in Peterson & Lillis that are most impacted have been closed for the summer. The work will continue through the first part of September.  As the project progresses, we will provide updates related to timelines.   
Please note:
o   293 Anstett will serve as the Technology Lab space for Summer 2013, with 30 computers and one printer available for student use.
o   262 Lillis will be the Technology Classroom (takes the place of 225 Chiles),with 30 computers available for student use.
o   The BRI is closed during the summer — We will keep Katie Mercurio & Ben Foster up to date if any opportunities open up for its use
o   Access to Building Management and the Information Services Staff can be gained through 3rd floor of Chiles; the Lab area will be closed off
o   Classrooms in Peterson, Lillis & Chiles that are closed for summer:  Peterson (101, 102, 103, 105, 107); Chiles (128, 225 & 1225A & 125B); Lillis (111, 211)
o   The bike lockers between Chiles & Lillis will not be accessible.  If you have one, the Parking & Transportation area either already has or will contact you with a new space for summer.
If you have any questions about any of these building issues, please contact Frank Sharpy at extension 6-4794, Shandon Bates at extension 6-3814, or me.  We look forward finishing the update of Chiles.  Your patience is appreciated.
            Cordially,
            Kees
Cornelis A. “Kees” de Kluyver, Dean
Rippey Distinguished Professor
Lundquist College of Business
1208 University of Oregon
Eugene OR 97403
(541) 346-3300

KdK/tab

Moffitt reveals UO Board will cost more than union dues. JH tries divide and conquer with faculty.

6/7/2013: Diane Dietz has the scoop:

The UO would need $1.7 million a year to hire 11 new employees to support its board and also perform financial functions the new entity would require, according to a UO analysis.

Funny, Rudnick didn’t mention this new cost at the bargaining session Thursday. A commenter wonders how long her bargaining team has been hiding this from the faculty? Lets find out:

Subject: PR request, UO Board costs
Date: June 7, 2013 4:13:18 PM PDT
To: Lisa Thornton Cc: Jamie Moffitt , Gregory Rikhoff , David Hubin

Dear Ms Thornton

This is a public records request for the cost estimates for the care and feeding of a UO Board, mentioned in this RG story: http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/29977065-75/board-university-state-oregon-boards.html.csp?utm_source=feedly
I’m ccing Jamie Moffitt because she should be able to easily send them along.

I ask for a public interest fee waiver because, well, because $1.7M is a lot of money.

The union expects to be able to keep dues to 1.25% of salary or less. After the raises, that will work out to about $1.3 million a year.

6/7/2013: And speaking of divide and conquer, “The University” sends these emails out to all the faculty who are not in the bargaining unit. I tried to get on the listserv – nope. President Gottfredson won’t tell me who really writes them, unless I pay $285.98. But judging from the number of people who forward them on to me with sarcastic comments – most which violate my one cuss word policy – this strategy is backfiring almost as badly as the attempt to drive a wedge between the students and the faculty did. Free speech zones? Whoops

FROM: Labor Relations
DATE: June 7, 2013 1:30:54 PM PDT
TO: Labor Relations
SUBJECT: BARGAINING UPDATE: FACULTY SALARIES AND OTHER CRITICAL NEEDS
_
This email is being sent to unrepresented members of the faculty._
_ _
_A Message from Barbara Altmann_
FACULTY SALARIES AND OTHER CRITICAL NEEDS
United Academics put a salary counterproposal on the bargaining table this week showing the faculty union hasn’t altered its position that the University of Oregon should spend more on salaries for bargaining unit members, regardless of other critical campus needs.
The University has offered bargaining unit members across-the-board and merit pay raises averaging 10.3% percent for tenure-track and tenured faculty and 11.37% for NTTFs. The NTTF figure includes $486,000 ($640,000 with benefits calculated) that would be set aside to address non-tenure-track faculty salary floors.
In total, the University is willing to invest an additional $13.3 million a year for faculty compensation over FY 14 and FY 15.
The union, however, wants more.
The latest United Academics’ proposal calls for approximately a 15.2% increase in pay for tenure-track and tenured faculty and approximately 19.2% for NTTFs. That represents between $20.7 and $22.1 million by FY 15, or between $ 7.3 and $8.7 million more per year than the University’s compensation proposal.
Both sides at the bargaining table readily acknowledge that the University has limited resources and many needs – including hiring new faculty, maintaining the UO library collection and services, upgrading the technology infrastructure, building and equipping classrooms, and adding advisors and counselors for students. There’s no disagreement that faculty excellence must be recognized and rewarded, and that improving faculty salaries is a major priority for the University’s limited funds.

The University is committed to achieving the goal of bringing faculty salaries in line with our peer institutions and to accomplishing that goal in a manner that preserves and protects our financial integrity and viability.
Since the beginning of negotiations about six months ago, the University has articulated three basic goals for the outcome of that process:
1. Enhance the university’s attractiveness to current and future students, faculty and staff.
2. Encourage and reward the highest quality teaching, research and community service.
3. Maintain a solid and sustainable financial structure.
Faculty compensation is critically important, but we cannot meet all those goals if we ignore other critical needs.
For additional information please visit the official website [1] of faculty contract negotiations (http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/ [1]). Please feel free to share this link with others.

UO Board legislation FAQ

Resources and news regarding the 2013 legislation to create a UO Board of Trustees.

Work in progress, suggestions welcome. Created 5/17/2013. Last updated 5/29/2013:

Hot topics:

5/29/2013: Kyr and others are testifying in the Ways and Means subcommittee today. Written testimony here. Supposedly there’s video here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/listenset.htm under conference room F.

Meanwhile, still no response from President Gottfredson on the applicability of the Public Records and Meetings law to the UO Board.


Word from the front is that the W&M meeting was jammed and none of the UO faculty got to speak. They will have another public meeting Wed.

Testimony for the Thursday 5/23/13 Ways and Means meeting on SB270 and HB3120 here. Many strong statements for and against.

Open letters from Frank Stahl, the Deans, and the union on SB270 are posted at the bottom.

The UO faculty union has sent out a message excoriating President Gottfredson for his “asked and answered” monologue on shared governance, and for his plan to gut it, which he will not publicly acknowledge:

To date, faculty who have expressed concern over the future of shared governance at UO have been publicly dismissed by President Gottfredson, and rebuffed at the union negotiating table. For example, when approximately 100 faculty and staff gathered this past Tuesday, May 14 for an opportunity to hear from President Gottfredson on the status of institutional board legislation, he shocked and dismayed many faculty with his lack of respect for preserving shared governance in relation to independent boards and our faculty union contract. At the negotiating table, President Gottfredson’s chief spokesperson has admitted that the UO constitution itself is not enforceable, and could be overturned by a new independent governing board.

The current PSU faculty union contract includes strong shared governance provisions. Their Faculty Senate Constitution gets legal status:

Article 12, Section 2. Notwithstanding the exclusive right of the association to negotiate and reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment, recognized in Article 1 (RECOGNITION), and the right of the University to carry out its ordinary and customary functions of management, recognized in Article 5 (RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE UNIVERSITY), the parties agree that it is mutually desirable that the collegial system of shared governance be maintained and strengthened so that faculty will have a mechanism and procedures, independent of collective bargaining, for appropriate participation in the governance of the University. To that effect, the Portland State University Faculty Constitution shall remain in existence for the duration of this Agreement subject to the provisions of Oregon University System IMD 1.120 through 1.126.

But their administration is trying to remove shared governance from the contract too. I wonder if PSU has hired Sharon Rudnick as a consultant? From the PSU AAUP site:

Take-away: The big take-away, from the perspective of our team, is that the administration would like to move much of our current contract language around issues of faculty governance from the contract into the Faculty Senate’s realm (an important advisory board to the Administration). We fear that ultimately, the Administration wants governance to be “shared” disproportionately, leaving faculty fewer rights and privileges. The removal of these powers from the contract would mean significant changes in long standing evaluation procedures and would erode or remove current safeguards around process (removal from the contract means procedural violations could no longer be grieved).

SB270:  Creates independent boards for UO and PSU, allows OSU and others to follow if they can show support among their university communities. There is no requirement for such support from the UO community.

Protections for shared governance in the current draft of SB270? None:

“SECTION 18. The president and professors constitute the faculty and as such have the immediate government and discipline of a university with a governing board and the students therein, except as otherwise provided by law or action of the governing board. The faculty may, subject to the supervision of the governing board and section 8 of this 2013 Act, prescribe the course of study to be pursued in the university and the textbooks to be used.

What do we have currently?

From OUS State Board OARs at http://www.ous.edu/state_board 

Page 104. “(7) Each institution is authorized to formulate a statement of internal governance expressed as a constitution or in another appropriate format which will be ratified as the official statement of internal governance by the relevant institutional body or bodies and the institution president. All statements of internal governance will be consistent with statutes governing the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, the Oregon University System, and any applicable Board rules, policies, or IMD.” 

Page 105. “(8) The statement of internal governance is subject to review and amendment when a new institution president assumes office or at other such times provided for in the internal governance statement. Any amendment to the statement of internal governance will be subject to ratification by the relevant institutional body or bodies and the institution president.” 

That is what we stand to lose with a UO board, unless a policy specifically protecting existing Constitutions is incorporated in the legislation that creates such boards, or into the faculty union CBA.

Board member qualifications: OHSU / UO comparison. OHSU went independent in 1995 and Kitzhaber views them as the model. Their legislation is here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/353.html There are a few differences between their legislation and the current draft for UO and PSU. One difference? The OHSU legislation requires that the Governor’s appointees actually have some experience or expertise: 

(b) Seven representatives who, in the discretion of the Governor, have experience in areas related to the university missions or that are important to the success of Oregon Health and Science University, including but not limited to higher education, health care, scientific research, engineering and technology and economic and business development. 

The proposed UO legislation? The governor can appoint anyone he/she wants to the UO Board of Trustees. No higher ed experience required. Pat Kilkenny, anyone?

Faculty/student/ staff representation? The original bill included 2 voting faculty members and a student. One recent revision had a non-voting student but specifically banned faculty or other employees. The current draft includes the UO president, a student, and a faculty member as non-voting members. Student and faculty selected by the governor.

Regarding the UO Board legislation, SB 270:

Frank Stahl sends this:

On May 20, 2013, President Gottfredson asserted, “The University of Oregon Constitution became the operative document for our shared governance system when [it was] ratified by the statutory faculty and signed by my predecessor on December 15, 2011. It is in effect as ratified and will remain so under an institutional board unless it is modified by procedures delineated in the constitution itself.” (http://president.uoregon.edu/content/president-gottfredson’s-comments-shared-governance).

That statement may sound comforting, but it ignores the fact that university governing boards have no obligation to accept presidential advice whereas they are bound by actions of the State Legislature. Hence the way to guarantee the survival of our Constitution, which is in full compliance with State Law as well as IMDs and Policies of the State Board, is to amend SB270 to include Oregon State Board of Higher Education Policies p 104(7) and p105(8). This is the time for President Gottfredson to exercise much needed leadership by inviting the UO Senate to join him in a statement to the State Senate of support for such an amendment.

The Deans send this: My comments in bold [ ]:

Dear Colleagues:
This is an open letter from the Deans to the UO community regarding this historic moment for our university. Legislation aimed at creating a public governing board for the University of Oregon continues to move forward in Salem, and we see this development as the most promising way to address the challenge of shrinking state support for our mission and our institution.  Simultaneously we are engaged in creating an historic collective bargaining agreement between the University and a new faculty union, one that will establish guidelines for labor practices for years to come.  With this letter we are reaching out to the entire university community to call for a positive, respectful and inclusive debate about the UO’s future. [I’m curious: This has been going on for 8 months. Why did you wait til the last possible minute to reach out to us?]
We believe that a fully informed and constructive dialogue will best serve the future of our institution. We want you to know that we collectively see great potential in the UO’s advance toward institutional governance and toward a fair collective bargaining agreement, and have high hopes for the future under the leadership of President Michael Gottfredson. 
The legislative process that will determine the future of our governance is at a delicate and critical stage. Establishing a public governing board solely dedicated to the UO, with the ability to generate much-needed investments from outside sources is critical to the future success of the university. 
Key legislation now being considered in Salem – SB 270 – is fully congruent with the UO’s commitment to shared governance, as President Gottfredson has affirmed on a number of occasions. [Talk is cheap.] On Monday, the President posted a statement on his website elaborating how his commitment to shared governance will be sustained and honored going forward under a public institutional board. We urge all members of the campus community to review these comments at http://president.uoregon.edu/content/president-gottfredson%E2%80%99s-comments-shared-governance[Websites are even cheaper.]

The university’s collective commitment to shared governance is exemplified by recent actions. Many members of the Provost’s search committee were nominated by the Senate, members of the elected Senate Budget Committee were key participants in this year’s budget setting process, [This is a sham, Gottfredson should know better, and the Deans shouldn’t play along with this nonsense] and the President meets regularly with the elected Faculty Advisory Committee and the elected Undergraduate and Graduate Councils exercise control over development of new curricular proposals. [That’s your best evidence of his commitment to shared governance? Not much. Thanks, but we want it in in a contract that someone besides Randy Geller can enforce.]
As Deans, we strongly support the tradition of shared governance at the University of Oregon and acknowledge its vital role in promoting academic excellence.  As we move forward we do not think it should be narrowly redefined solely within the context of a collective bargaining agreement. As other institutions of higher learning with faculty and staff unions demonstrate, the commitment of Deans and faculty to shared governance cannot and should not be limited to labor contracts between a union and the university.  [Not be limited…. what are they trying to say here? Spit it out: you don’t want the constitution to have legal protections in the contract, so that the faculty can’t effectively enforce shared governance.] We know all faculty at the UO (both represented and non-represented) share a commitment to academic excellence.  Our mission requires that we continue to work together collaboratively to promote the highest possible quality of teaching, learning and research at the University of Oregon.
We are engaged in a major effort to attract and retain the very best faculty and we see the quality of the public discourse among the entire UO community as a key factor in attaining this goal. [Pay us. Why don’t the Dean’s send out an email supporting the unions efforts to get comparable pay?]  In addition, as we prepare to launch a major capital campaign, we hope to engage potential donors and supporters in a positive, constructive and respectful dialogue about the future of the University of Oregon.  We need your help in this endeavor because it is truly a shared vision that depends on our collective efforts. [So why did you wait til the last minute to try and enlist our support, when we had little possibility of influencing the actual legislation?]
The bottom line: We urge the UO community to come together so that we can build one of the strongest and most creative research universities in the nation. We trust [Thanks. Bit late for trust us stuff] that you will join President Gottfredson and us in promoting this noble and exciting endeavor by working together as we move forward.  We value your commitment to excellence and believe that the future of the university is dependent on the strength of the entire UO community.
Frances Bronet, Dean
School of Architecture & Allied Arts
Michael Bullis, Dean
Sommerville-Knight Professor
College of Education
Deborah Carver
Philip H. Knight Dean of Libraries
Scott Coltrane
Tykeson Dean of Arts & Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
Kimberly Andrews Espy, Dean
Graduate School, Vice President for Research & Innovation
Brad Foley, Dean
School of Music & Dance
David Frank, Dean
Robert D. Clark Honors College
Tim Gleason
Edwin L. Artzt Dean & Professor
School of Journalism & Communication
Cornelis A “Kees” de Kluyver, Dean
Rippey Distinguished Professor
Charles H. Lundquist College of Business
Michael Moffitt
Philip H. Knight Dean

School of Law

The UO Faculty Union sends this:

Shared governance remains front and center this week.  On Thursday, the Oregon House Ways and Means Committee will hold a public hearing on Independent Institutional Board legislation.  On Tuesday and Thursday, our faculty negotiating team will be back at the bargaining table with the Administration’s representatives.  In both arenas, United Academics will continue to press the case to protect and preserve shared governance at UO.
BARGAINING
Bargaining will take place Tuesday and Thursday, 8am-12pm in 122 Knight Library.  Negotiations are open to everyone.  Please make time to attend negotiations and support your faculty negotiators!
LEGSILATIVE ACTION
Senate Bill 270 and House Bill 3120 – the twin pieces of legislation that outline future possibilities for independent institutional boards at UO, OSU, and PSU – are up for a public hearing in the Oregon House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Education this Thursday (5/23) at 8:30am in the Capitol, Room HR F.   United Academics strongly believes faculty, staff and students should have representation and voting rights on any future independent board.  As currently worded, pending legislation does not guarantee representation nor voting rights for faculty, staff, nor students.
If you’re able to attend, click here to let us know and learn more about carpool opportunities.
If you’re not able to attend in person, you can make sure that President Gottfredson, Governor Kitzhaber, and our elected representatives know that faculty at UO care about shared governance: CLICK HERE to send your message in support of shared governance now!


HB3120: Expands authority and membership of Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC). Transfers State Board of Education (SBE) authority for community colleges to HECC. Abolishes Oregon Student Access Commission and transfers policy-making authority to HECC and administrative authority to newly created Office of Student Access and Completion.


New Partnership History:

Senate: Wed May 22, 3 to 5:30. Updated with proposed motion of no confidence.

Update: A hearty congratulations to the losers of the Senate and committee elections. Names of the unfortunate winners are posted here.

Agenda:  Here and below. Legal services, new course approvals, perhaps a motion calling for amendments to SB270 to incorporate the constitution.

Regarding the UO Board legislation, SB 270. FAQ here.

Live blog disclaimer: My interpretation of what people said, meant to say, or what I wished they’d said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.

3:00 pm 1. Call to Order
3:02 pm 2. State of the University


2.1 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President
Meet w/ Rob tonight, 6:00-9:00pm at Collier House to give him input for his testimony tomorrow the the State Legislature on SB270.
Kyr: We’ve been dealt a bad hand over the past few years, as a university we’ve done as well as possible with it.

3:20 pm 3. New Business

3.1 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration;
Presented to Stephanie Bosnyk, Assistant Dean of Operations, Lundquist College of Business (Jim Bean came in second.)

Standing ovation, very nice remarks. 
3.2 UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award; 
Presented to Richard Daniels, Outgoing Mail Specialist
Unable to make the meeting, he’s enjoying his retirement traveling. Very personable written remarks – handy with plumbing and can run a sewing-machine! Slips in a pitch for SEIU and for higher compensation for staff. Slick.

3.3 Wayne Westling Award; 
Presented to Paul Engelking; Professor (Chemistry)
Kyr: Paul’s put UOCC minutes and process onto the web, improving transparency and efficiency.
Engelking: Remembers Wayne Westling with admiration. Great story about how he (Paul) was tricked into becoming Senate president.

Paul Simonds, Senate Parliamentarian: As oldest “dead president” he inducts Kyr into the society, with two bottles of wine, one for each year. Might be worth showing up at Collier House tonight.
3.4 Motion (Legislation): Spring Curriculum Report
Paul Engelking, Chair; Committee on Courses
Approved. 

3.5 Motion (Legislation):
Authorization to Award Degrees; Robert Kyr,  Senate President
Approved.

3.6 Announcement of
Spring Election Results (Kyr) 
3.7 Introduction of New Senators (Kyr) 
Yeah. Good group.

3.8 Signing of
Facilities Scheduling Policy & the Conferral of Posthumous Degrees
Policy (Kyr) 
Pres Gottfredson has agreed and is signing. Free at last.

3.9
Academic Freedom & Freedom of Speech Policy (Kyr) 
Gottfredson wants to divide these into 2 policies, so we’ll put these off until next year. Strange – the union contract has a lot to say about these issues as well.

3.10
Legal Services Policy; Margie Paris (Law), Senate President-Elect & Chair, Legal Representation Policy Review Committee 
Paris: Harbaugh noticed that the UO is now independent of the DOJ, Stahl suggested removing that part. She now proposes delaying until fall so she can consult with UO’s General Counsel.

3.11 Senate-Administration Joint Review of the Office of Research, Innovation,

and Graduate Education [RIGE] (Kyr) 
Committee’s report was due June 15, but it will take much longer.
Blonigen: We have a big charge, putting the committee together took a long time, lots to deal with here. Hopes to meet with stakeholders and with the many complainants about RIGE’s operations and Espy over the rest of the term, then work over the summer to benchmark RIGE with other universities, hope to have report in the fall. 

3.12 Motion (Legislation):
Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 2
(Tenth-Year Review 2013); Robert Kyr, Senate President & Chair, Tenth-Year Review (Committee on Committees) 
Kyr: Moderate revisions to campus planning and the committee on committees.

Campus planning: “Committee shall be consulted early in the process”
Harbaugh and Mitchell propose amendment to include all facilities controlled by UO. Keyes brings up land use issues. Paris proposes postponing til we can figure it out. Approved.

Committee on committees: This committee is supposed to appoint the faculty members of the administration’s advisory groups, when appropriate. Gottfredson has not been doing this. Motion strengthens the Senate’s hand a little.
Approved unanimously.


3.13 Motion (Legislation):
Working Groups for Administrative Advisory Groups (Paris) 
Paris: During the review of committees we discovered that there are a lot of administrative advisory groups that are “owned” by specific administrators. Sullivan: Amendment to allow looking into all such working groups. Approved unanimously.

3.14 Motion (Legislation):
Working Groups for Faculty Research Awards  Committee (Paris)
Approved unanimously

The Senate is now an hour ahead of schedule!

5:25 pm 4. Open Discussion

Stahl: Announces that Nathan Tublitz wants to submit a notice of motion for a vote of no confidence in President Gottfredson.

Woah! Here is the text of Tublitz’s motion, posted with his permission:

Dear Senate President Kyr and Vice President Paris:

Last week I put forward to the Senate a motion of no confidence in President Gottfredson. The following day, after a meeting with the Senate Executive Committee and some FAC members, I agreed to hold off submitting my notice of motion only if the President endorsed the University Constitution and put forward his best effort to ensure that SB270 contained a clause guaranteeing our right to develop and maintain our own internal governance system free from interference by outside groups, including any future UO Board. 

The statement released yesterday by the President on his website (http://president.uoregon.edu/content/president-gottfredson%E2%80%99s-comments-shared-governance [1]) contained no such statement. Neither did the “press release” issued today on his behalf by Administrative Spokesperson Barbara Altmann. Nor has such a statement been issued at the current union negotiations by the Administration’s bargaining team which speaks for the President. It is clear that the President has no intention to ensure the continued existence of our ability to generate our own internal governance system, a right enshrined in the 1876 University Charter and which has been the foundation of our governance system for the past 137 years. 

The President’s unwillingness to go to bat to secure our governance system is the latest of many his actions since he took office that, taken together, demonstrate a disturbing lack of leadership and understanding of the University’s history and traditions. 

Therefore, with this email I formally give notice to the Senate Leadership of a motion of no confidence in President Gottfredson. There is no Constitutional reason not to accept my notice of motion. Thus, please add my notice to the Senate agenda for tomorrow’s meeting and announce the notice of motion at the Senate meeting. 

Please confirm in writing that you will add the motion to the Senate docket and that the motion will be announced at tomorrow’s meeting. 

Sincerely, Nathan Tublitz

Kyr: This is now an executive session, under the Oregon public meetings law, because this is a personell matter.

No blogging about the exec session, because I am registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as an “Institutionalized News Media Organization” and the public meetings law forbids me from reporting on this. I’ll be back when the executive session part is over.

5:32: Executive session is over. Can’t say what was discussed, but the Senate will not be voting on this proposed motion at this meeting, which is the last until Fall.

Kyr: I am very happy that Margie Paris is now taking over as Senate President.

Long standing ovation for Kyr. My opinion is that Kyr has done a stellar job as Senate President and has fully earned the respect of the faculty which he now holds, for his untiring, selfless, and productive service during two incredibly difficult years. He’s negotiated many minefields and has come out of them with the respect of those who’ve worked with him, and at times against him. I say that despite having had him shoot me down on a few issues. We’ve been lucky to have him, and it’s great news for UO that he will continue to serve on the Senate.

5:35 pm Adjournment

Gottfredson’s fire sale on UO Board emails

5/20/2013: I’m guessing these emails about legislation for a UO Board of trustees – a matter of legitimate public interest to many in the state – are now well past their sell-by date, hence the discount. The Register-Guard originally requested them 10 weeks ago:

From: Bill Harbaugh
Subject: Re: PR request for Boyd documents
Date: May 20, 2013 8:49:26 PM PDT
To: Dave Hubin , Gregory Rikhoff , President Gottfredson
Hi Dave:
I don’t understand the email below from your Public Records Officer, regarding emails about the drafting of legislation for an independent UO board.
She says her original estimate was unclear. No, it was perfectly clear, to the penny: $1065.29 to see a few emails.
What is unclear is why the sudden 40% discount she’s now offering. I’ve asked before for an explanation of the PR Office’s policies on fees. You wouldn’t give me anything substantive. Why not?
Please forward an explanation for this unexpected 40% sale price. If I don’t buy at $639.18, is there a chance you’ll come down more? Does the answer depend on how much I can embarrass you, Randy Geller, and President Gottfredson over using these charges to delay or prevent the release of public records to the public?
Can I also expect a discount on the $285 you are trying to charge me for a single email showing the names of the members of the administrative union bargaining team? Are you also willing to haggle over the $535 you are trying to charge for a single month of invoices showing how much public money UO is paying HLGR to negotiate, slowly, with the faculty union?
What will it take to make you see the light on this issue, and realize that your office’s continued and persistent efforts to frustrate the release of public records are, in the end, far more damaging to UO than anything that is likely to be found in these documents?
Thanks for your help with these questions,
Bill Harbaugh
UO Prof of Economics
On MondayMay 20, 2013, at 6:07 PM, “Office of Public Records” <pubrec@uoregon.edu> wrote:
5/20/2013
Dear Mr. Harbaugh-
The estimate I sent you on 5/16 in response to your request for an update on your request for “all records generated or received by University of Oregon employee Betsy Boyd and UO President Gottfredson regarding proposed or draft legislation that would create a University of Oregon governing board or otherwise change the relationship between the UO and state government. The time period for the request is Nov. 1, 2012 to the present”, was unclear.
I would like to clarify that while the actual cost of responding to your request is $1065.29, the office has agreed to provide a fee reduction of 40%. Accordingly, the new estimate for your request is $639.18.  Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon in this amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure….
Lisa Thornton
Public Records Officer
University of Oregon
Office of the President

Legislative meeting update: Faculty endorses independent UO Board legislation

5/17/3013 Update:

The Ways and Means subcommittee meeting is scheduled for 8:30 AM, Salem, Thursday the 23rd. One last chance to let your legislators know how you feel about this power grab.

5/16/2013:


Whoops, the video of President Kyr and Peter Keyes, and the resolution below, are from November 2011, at the meeting of the Statutory Faculty in Mac Court, protesting the Lariviere firing.

I believed I was endorsing legislation for a board that would including voting faculty and that would put the UO constitution on a firm legal footing.

Now the legislation has been written by President Gottfredson, Randy Geller, and their unknown advisers and lobbyists. There’s been little to no faculty input. Unless you count Gottfredson’s “asked and answered” fiasco on Tuesday.

The Oregon legislature will probably vote on this within weeks. Does the faculty support it in its current form, which includes no voting faculty members, and no guarantees for shared governance? Who knows – we’ve never been asked.

    SFA 11/12-02: Motion for the Establishment of a UO Board of Trustees, Senate Executive Committee presented by Professor Peter Keyes, Architecture
The UO Faculty Assembly directs the Senate Executive Committee, or an ad hoc Senate Committee to be appointed by the Senate President, to initiate negotiations with State Legislative leaders and the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, leading to the appointment of a University of Oregon Board of Trustees. 
The scope of issues to be engaged in the discussion of the powers of this board shall include, but shall not be limited to:
1.    The composition and appointment process of the Board
2.    Operational oversight of the University
3.    Setting of  tuition and fees
4.    Budgetary control
5.    Contract negotiations and contract authority
6.    Bonding authority
7.    Acquisition of property
8.    Status of legal counsel
9.    Construction buildings
10. Authority over the hiring and firing of president of UO.
11. Hiring and personnel policies for faculty and staff

Are Rudnick and HLGR also writing the UO Board legislation?

5/16/2013: Presumably Randy Geller is getting competent legal advice somewhere. Frohnmayer wrote the original version. And if it’s HLGR it would help explain Rudnick’s bargaining table outbursts about keeping shared governance out of the contract. HLGR wrote the Nike tax relief bill that Kitzhaber pushed through in special session, so they’ve got Phil Knight’s trust. The legislative site on the bill is here. I’ll do some more digging, if anyone knows anything please pass it along. Meanwhile the UO Senate will hold a vote of no confidence in Mr. Geller this fall. More on that soon.

After the horse has left the barn, refreshments will be provided

5/6/2013: President Michael Gottfredson invites UO faculty and staff to join him for an informal gathering and discussion of the University of Oregon’s governance structure as a public university within the state of Oregon. University officials who have helped shape pending legislation that would authorize institutional boards, and who have closely tracked the governor’s restructuring of higher education, will attend the session. Another opportunity to discuss governance issues with the president will be scheduled for early June.

Refreshments will be provided at the May 14 event.
More information about university governance proposals is available at http://bit.ly/15aJh1Y
DATE: Tuesday, May 14
TIME: 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Gerlinger Lounge
Any questions? Contact Staci Knabe, knabe@uoregon.edu; 6-5557

Senator Hass discusses UO Board at noon on OPB

http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/who-should-govern-oregon-universities/

The current draft of SB270 includes a faculty member, but only as a non-voting member.

Some recent contributions to the campaign fund of Higher Ed Committee Chair and Senator Mark Hass, courtesy of a curious reader:

1/11/13:  American Association of University Professors $250
1/10/13:  Nike, Inc & Affiliates $1,000
10/18/12:  Phil Knight $5,000
9/27/12:  Nike, Inc & Affiliates $5,000

$250 just doesn’t buy much these days, does it.

On balance though, I’m going to change my mind on this, and agree with President Gottfredson. It’s a bad idea to have a voting faculty member of the Board. I’m not sure what his reasons are, but mine is that it would be a fig leaf. The governor would just appoint some toady, and then the Board would forever be claiming “we made this decision with the full support and vote of our token faculty stooge.” With the bill as amended the jock-sniffers and friends of Nike’s sports marketing machine that are going to end up running the show anyway are going to bear full responsibility for their decisions and the consequences for UO – good or bad.

President Gottfredson’s 4/11/2013 testimony to the legislature. Shouldn’t that be “shared governance”?

Current draft of SB270:

Andy Stahl’s letter to Haas:

Dear Senator Hass, 

I write as a UO/OSU alum and son of long-time (1959-present) UO genetics professor Frank Stahl (co-founder of the UO’s world-class Institute of Molecular Biology).  I have also served on a local school board (Crow-Applegate-Lorane) and, in my professional capacity, am a practical student of government reform and accountability. 

I am sympathetic to the possibility of financial conflicts-of-interest, in particular in regard to collective bargaining, that present themselves with faculty/employee representation on the independent board.  For that reason, many states (albeit not Oregon), bar school district employees from service on their own boards.  In my experience, I have seen the wisdom of that policy. 

I am equally sympathetic to the faculty’s prerogatives in university governance.  Simply put, the enterprise of higher education works best when faculty are empowered.  Oregon has scant few advantages as we recruit against the rest of the world for the best and brightest faculty.  Certainly not salary.  Certainly not benefits.  One of our selling points could be an effective voice in self-governance that ensures academic inquiry is promoted by a University administration that works for the faculty — not the other way around.  That’s what the UO offered in mid-20th century.  It is what attracted my father to Oregon at a time he could have gone anywhere (for which I am grateful!).  In turn, he was able to recruit superb colleagues (e.g., George Streisinger, founder of the UO’s world-famous zebrafish research institute) by promoting the university community’s collegiality.  Those characteristics have eroded beyond recognition today.  The UO is an intellectually poorer place as a result. 

I suggest the following modifications to the current bill might reconcile these goals:
1)  Ensure the independent board’s hiring of the university’s president is subject to the faculty’s advice and consent; 2)  Ensure that the board does not interfere in the university’s day-to-day operations by retaining or strengthening existing state law that vests with the faculty (led by the university president) with the overall governance responsibility for teaching and research.

Advice-and-consent is a well-proven policy that has survived over 200 years in our national Constitution.  No CEO of any large organization can prosper, not can the institution, without substantial support from “above” and “below.”  Faculty advice-and-consent in the hiring of the university president will help establish the respect and buy-in necessary for leadership. 

The responsibility for the internal day-to-day governance of a university should rest with those who have to carry it out — the faculty.  The board should not meddle in such matters. 

In closing, the independent board legislation is too important a matter to get wrong.  If it takes more than a single legislative session to hammer out, so be it.  There is no rush to judgment that compels this legislature to pass a bill that lacks a consensus among the people with the most at stake.  I hope these suggestions are helpful.  Please do reply if you wish any clarification or to discuss these matters. 

Sincerely,
Andy Stahl

UO Foundation and Gottfredson power grab

“UO Foundation resists compromise to include faculty on proposed independent governing boards”From Saul Hubbard in the RG. They’re using money donated to UO to pay Ginny Lang, the lobbyist who is meeting with legislators to fight against faculty participation. Meanwhile President Gottfredson won’t sign the UO constitution that Rob Kyr and the Senate negotiated with Lariviere, he won’t agree to put it in the faculty union contract, and he’s fighting transparency and public records access tooth and nail. I’m sure it’s going down well with the sports boosters at the foundation, who will soon pack the UO Board of Trustees. Last year the UO Foundation spent $2.2M on need-based scholarships, $8.7M on athletic scholarships, and who knows how much on lobbyists. 4/8/2013.

Lariviere on the UO Board and public records

4/1/2013: From an interesting piece by Brent Walth in the Oregon Quarterly in Fall of 2010:

The UO board would have the real power—control over tuition and spending, the power to hire and fire the president, and to OK any major initiative or donor-driven project.
Lariviere says a local board could work well, as long as it doesn’t become beholden to the president, big donors, or other political influences—such as, he says, campaign contributors who want a governor to stack the UO board in a particular way. He’s right—but these are big ifs. This plan increases the chances that the kind of political influences he describes—for good or ill—could affect the operations of the UO. 

Perhaps the biggest ask Lariviere is making is in seeking greater public trust in the UO.
Lariviere makes this request as he tries to turn around the UO’s image that has been scorched in headlines about secret deals, million-dollar buyouts, and a history of cloaked relationships with major donors. In short, Lariviere is asking for Oregonians’ trust at a time when the UO is trying to overcome what he acknowledges is a history of mistrust—capped off in April by the controversial $2.3 million buyout deal of former Duck athletic director Mike Bellotti, which exposed sloppy and cozy dealing within the UO. The University has faced similar criticisms about its reputation for excessive secrecy, especially in regard to what some perceive as foot-dragging when it comes to responding to public-records requests. My colleague at The Oregonian, columnist Steve Duin, wrote that the UO had “adopted a code of secrecy worthy of the KGB”—especially around UO athletics and Phil Knight ’59, chairman of Nike and the University’s megadonor. 

Lariviere says the Bellotti mess (he actually used a barnyard epithet instead of the word mess) helps to make his point about transparency and accountability: He believes a board dedicated to running the UO would have demanded more transparency in the first place and never allowed the University’s athletic director to work based on a handshake deal. Similarly, he has already responded to criticism about public-records foot-dragging by creating a public records ombudsman who will track and make posts on the Internet about the way in which the UO deals with every public records request it receives. Lariviere says it might take years to rebuild the trust the UO has lost. “The legacy of mistrust is pretty deep,” Lariviere says. “I don’t understand it. I understand there is mistrust. I don’t understand what gave rise to it or why the policies were in place that gave rise to mistrust.”

Gottfredson hides emails about UO board negotiations

4/1/2013: President Gottfredson’s public records office is trying to hide the details of the negotiations over the UO Board of Trustees from the public and the press. Dave Hubin sat on this public records request from the Register Guard for more than two weeks before even giving out an estimate. Now he is trying to use excessive fees to prevent the release of the documents:

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “all records generated or received by University of Oregon employee Betsy Boyd and UO President Gottfredson regarding proposed or draft legislation that would create a University of Oregon governing board or otherwise change the relationship between the UO and state government.The time period for the request is Nov. 1, 2012 to the present”, on 03/20/2013, 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 $ 1065.29. The University has agreed to reduce this fee by 40%. Accordingly, upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon in the amount of $639.18, 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.

Wouldn’t want the public to know anything about the negotiations to set up a board for a public university.