today. He hasn’t got out of Johnson Hall much yet, so it will be interesting to hear what comes from this. 9/19/2012.
9/20/2012 update: Turns out he did not show and was not on the agenda. Jamie Moffitt stood in for Johnson Hall. Step up your game, secret sources.
He’ll get an earful about Espy.
dog says
I think there is widespread discontent with Espy in some quarters of campus that is based on perceptions that aren’t even close to
correct. Like Obama, Espy was dealt a total shit hand when she took this job, and the extent of that shitstorm has never been
properly revealed.
Give her 3 years before you make a knee jerk reaction summary judgement.
Respectfully disagree. ‘Give her 3 years’? Are you kidding? Would you let any other top administrator experiment for 3 years before reacting? It’s insulting to assume that the ‘widespread discontent’ comes from people who don’t understand the financial hole that she walked into. The majority of the UO research community is well aware of deficit financing. We would be understanding if treated like partners rather than naughty children.
dog says
1) how many years did we give Linton?
2) How many years are we giving bean?
3) Is it possible to step into our situation and immediately do the right thing?
4) I think there is general awareness of the basic deficit
financing, but much less aware of compliance issues (and there are some naughty children), obligation issues, grad student issues, etc.
5) I do agree that she has not handled the start up problem well, but I am not sure there is a “well” way to handle that right now.
6) Espy is a) not stupid, b) not happy with this place, c) may just leave, d) does have a long term stability perspective
Agreed. I find the whining about Espy puzzling.
No worries, Mullens can do that job too.
They will ask him when he will implement the rest of Lariviere’s salary increase plan. He did get Kitzhaber to agree to that before accepting the job, right?
Unfortunately Bean’s right on this one – the union makes that plan moot. Of course the hope is that the union negotiates an equal or better plan. We’ll see over the coming months.
Before I believe Jim Bean on this I would want to see a legal brief explaining how unionization prevent’s UO from implementing the Lariviere plan. Given that the administration didn’t produce anything like this during the union election, I’m guessing there is no such argument to be made. But I’m no law professor. Does anyone know more?
I have no idea if there’s a legal barrier. But it’s common sense, or barring that, day 1 of negotiations class.
I doubt there is a legal reason preventing implementation of the Lariviere plan, but why implement one plan when bargaining may produce another? Even with the most cynical view, unionization gave the administration a great excuse not to follow through with raises.
Raises for the faculty that is. Bean and the central administrators made damn sure that they got theirs.
My understanding is that administrators aren’t in the union so why would faculty unionization hold up administrator raises?
Jim is OK with destroying the university, if that’s what it takes to show the faculty they shouldn’t have unionized. Don’t know if he’s on firm legal ground though, sorry.
What I’ve heard is that the raises that were planned last spring have been withheld because the administration doesn’t know what it is going to be facing in terms of union demands or heightened demands from other groups that want to jockey for a piece of the pie as we break up into bargaining units, each of which will be fighting for its own constituency. And now we have a new president with his own priorities–good ones from what I hear–that will require more resources. The result will probably be less money for faculty salary raises, though potentially more for other investments the faculty cares about. However that shakes out, one likely downside will be less financial transparency because the administration and the faculty are now in a competitive bargaining relationship with one another, meaning that some cards have to be held close to the chest.
Dog predicts
1. no more salary raises for dogs; ever
2. dogs will take salary cuts so that more money goes to
humans and less to dogs
Stop whining, Dog….
dog replies
dogs bark – humans whine
Word was he had to go to Salem to play nice with the board, Jamie Moffet came in his stead.
And word from the CAS Department Head’s retreat is that almost every issue of substance that came up was met by “we can’t discuss that because of the new situation with the union.” And the department heads are management! Welcome to the new world that is the UofO.
Dog Agrees
The union is going to give admin a reason for not doing anything. Surely this was known in advance …
To be fair, the union is just the LATEST reason for not doing anything – the ineptness of admin long preceded the union…in fact was a driving force for the union. If management takes that position then they have once again proven their unworthiness as leaders.
Same crap from Tim Gleason at the journalism school meeting.
Dog says.
Okay then its a continuous and never ending reason . . .