13 Responses to Pernsteiner guts independent UO board proposal

  1. Anonymous says:

    Plenty of negotiating yet to be done on this.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Yep, this is where a lot more of our concern should be focused.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Concern that an independent board will be dominated by sports boosters, like the UO foundation?

    • Anonymous says:

      Nope, not concerned. That’s because a UO board would be appointed by the governor, confirmed by the legislature, accountable to the OEIB, and responsible for ensuring UO serves its public mission. That would be a vast improvement over a decrepit system that serves no one but the bureaucracy that runs it — as evidenced by the document linked to this post.

      The UO Foundation has a different purpose: to pay for the booze at faculty recruitment dinners. Bottoms up!

  4. uomatters says:

    Listen to the audio (which starts with a mike check student protest arguing professors should do more teaching and less research). Allyn Ford tries to argue against Pernsteiner’s power grab, but gets nowhere. It doesn’t seem like Bob Berdahl was at the meeting.

    • Anonymous says:

      This will be a legislative play, because no one expects the SBHE/OUS to reform itself. Two good Lane Cty legislators are on the committee to set up independent boards. They can point out that the Pernsteiner plan does nothing but add even more red tape to the system. But they could use some backup.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Who cares. With (and quite possibly without) a union, the state is never going to allow a board with any independence.

    But it doesn’t matter anyway — with a union, UO is finished as a potentially serious institution — it’s over, folks.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’m against the union. But can someone explain how union or not makes a difference for an independent UO? I’m not being rhetorical, I just want to know the reasoning here, and this keeps getting said. Why would the legislature be any more inclined for independence without a union? I’m getting a bit tired of hyperbolic claims — on both sides — about the consequences of unionization, which are just speculation. (E.g., can we stop with “UO is finished as a potentially serious institution”? Alas, this may or may not come to pass with a union, it may or may not have been the future without a union anyway (hard to decide on counterfactuals), but this is certainly not a fait accompli.) –Frog

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks, Frog. Good question. My gut sense is that unionization makes little difference one way or another to any decision on independent boards. State educational bureaucrats, politicans, and policymakers are at least used to working with unions. But while unions are known quantities for these sorts of people, faculty interests matter relatively little in their calculations in the end.

      That said, unionization does distract our own faculty from doing it what little it can to affect the outcome of these legislative discussions, which are gearing up as we speak. Anon 10:50am may be right to fear that the state is unlikely to come through for us, but now’s the best chance in a generation to give it a shot. Other flagships — Wisconsin and now Berkeley — are pushing the same sorts of questions:
      http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0424-uc-20120424,0,4754981.story

      I know all this sounds like an issue for governance geeks — but RL sacrificed his job over it, so you have to ask why. And you’d think that union advocates would have jumped at the chance to help determine what kind of people will sit across the table from them — those dedicated to UO versus those dedicated to a system. Alas, that opportunity may have been missed.

    • Anonymous says:

      Indeed I fear the union is navel-gazing and letting the big picture slip away–but then so too are the anti-union folks. It’s all potentially a wonderful side-show, while the real hammer driving UO into the ground is slamming away…

    • Anonymous says:

      While I initially urged one united front against our comic-book villain of a Chancellor, that was not to be.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Since others are engaged in idle speculation about the consequences of unionization, I will too: Below, please find a before and after table:

    Before
    The best faculty were lured away by better pay, or jobs for their spouses, or better working conditions.

    After
    The best faculty will be lured away by better pay, or jobs for their spouses, or better working conditions.

    Before
    Pay below peers, less so for younger faculty

    After
    Pay below peers, less so for younger faculty. Net incomes down -1 to -5 percent, due to union dues!

    Before
    Tenure for everyone! (Thanks for that UO!)

    After
    Tenure for everyone!

    Before
    Overpaid, bloated administration

    After
    Overpaid, bloated administration

    Before
    No chance of independent board

    After
    No chance of independent board

    Conclusion: Everyone take a deep breath. Things will be just as they were before, minus 1 to 5 % pay which now goes to the union.

    –Frog

  8. The view beyond 97403 says:

    April 27, 2012. State board cans maverick university leader/true academic — John Lombardi, in Louisiana. Jindal administration governance reform plans “rearrange deck chairs” instead of granting universities needed autonomy. Gubernatorial pressure on state board leads to alleged circumvention of open-meetings law.

    “Having worked in different states with different college board and system arrangements, Lombardi added, ‘None of them are any good.'”

    http://theadvocate.com/home/2688926-125/lombardi-known-as-blunt-at
    http://theadvocate.com/home/2683702-125/lombardi-out