Update:
Prof. Barbara Altmann accuses faculty union of supporting child pornography.
Update #4 on the Admin blog, for today 2/7/2013:
In perhaps the most extreme section, the Union proposed that “[t]he content of faculty profiles in social media (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc) shall not be considered during any evaluation of a faculty member.” What if a bargaining unit member is using social media to threaten and intimidate colleagues? What about in a case of child pornography?
I’m no child pornographer although I will admit I have watched the occasional adult movie on videos hd from time to time, but I’m guessing if I was, and posting it on Facebook, the Dean would be the least of my worries. Ok, maybe it’s not really Barbara writing this garbage – maybe JH is just putting her name on something written by one of their law firms, or Randy Geller. Her blog invites people to email her and ask her questions. So what the hell, lets see who is behind the Johnson Hall child porn ring:
Subject: public records request: union child pornography
Date: February 7, 2013 7:21:59 PM PST
To: Lisa Thornton, David Hubin
Cc: Barbara Altmann, Randy Geller , Doug Blandy , Tim Gleason , James Bean , doug park
Dear Ms Thornton:
This is a public records request for a copy of any emails containing all of the words “child”, “pornography” (or porn) and “union”, including any email that simply contain links to porn websites like go now sex-hd.xxx for example, this is for all sent or received by Michael Gottfredson, Randy Geller, Doug Park, Tim Gleason, Doug Blandy, Barbara Altmann, or Jim Bean, from 1/1/2013 to the present.
I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest, as demonstrated by the “bargaining update #4” on this topic, posted by Professor Altmann on the official UO administration information blog at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/
Today’s Bargaining session:
Thursday 2/7/2013, 8-12 AM, 450 Lillis: Be there. Word is that Sharon Rudnick will buy all the faculty who show up Voodoo donuts out of her $3200 daily take, or roughly what our students pay for 16 credits of in-state tuition.
Live blog disclaimer: My interpretation of what people said, meant, meant to say, or what I wished they’d said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.
Prelude: UConn has a faculty union and is in the middle of a big push to be the next university to get into the AAU, including hiring of hundreds of tenure-track teaching and research faculty. UO hired a total of 17 new TTF last year (net) and our research plans are in total disarray, thanks to Interim Provost Jim Bean’s incompetence,lack of focus, and distraction by athletics.
 Doug Blandy
|
 Sharon Rudnick
|
 Tim Gleason
|
Today’s Cast: No Blandy, no Cecil, no Altmann, no Geller. Where is Geller – still working for Gottfredson?
Scene I:
Academic freedom and responsibility:
This should be good – presumably Geller’s had a hand in it after being read the riot act by Gottfredson over his prior attempt at a university policy. Rudnick: I’ll let Tim Gleason talk about this. Then she keeps on talking… We took this from the UF CBA and the AAU Red Book and Oregon law. Gleason: I don’t have much to add. Freedoms and responsibilities. Mauer: We can find the policy on-line? Rudnick: Yes. (Actually, No. A substantially revised policy is currently up for Senate approval, probably in April, but Geller has been sitting on it for 18 months. Check this link for an old redlined version, this was a huge fight with the Senate Executive last year, Geller wouldn’t appear to defend it, much to Dave Hubin’s embarrassment.) Rudnick: Starts lecturing Mauer about faculty, gets that loud angry thing going again. Does this work for her in court? Gleason: Def of disruptive is based not on content, but on how disruptive the context is in which the speech is made. Mauer: These other clauses look good. Mauer: What about g): “Seek change only in ways that don’t obstruct the functions of the university.” (Me: Frohnmayer, Lariviere, and Berdahl all accused much of pretty much exactly this for running UO Matters, requesting “too many” public records, etc.) Same with Geller and his GC Emerita Melinda Grier. Gleason: I don’t think we mean’t this to address civil disobedience. Rudnick jumps in again: nothing in this article would prohibit that. Mauer: pitch a tent outside JH? Rudnick: that would be OK. Mauer: We’ll see what happens when the Dalai Lama appears. Green: Suppose students and faculty block catering trucks from getting to a donor dinner (because the donor got rich off Philip Morris work). Gleason: Say it’s trespass. This policy would be irrelevant because that would be civil disobedience. Rudnick: Nothing in this policy would discourage that, but we could have our cops arrest you and then fire you for illegal activity. Pratt: Suppose the admin decides they want a particular program or course content, but faculty disagreed. (I’m thinking the sports conflict program in law). Would that constitute obstruction? Gleason: That wouldn’t be obstruction. Pratt: Better if it said obstruct “mission of university” rather than “functions of the university”. Rudnick: OK.
(Commenter: “Nothing in this Article affects the University’s right to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” Me: That’s new. by “the University” they mean “the Administration”. Sneaky one, Gleason.)
Rudnick: What faculty say in public must be said with restraint. (WTF?) Threshold for university to take action is very high – must show person is not fit for position because of their conduct. (Me: Both Frohnmayer and Berdahl have used my statements on this blog to accuse me of being a bad social scientist – Berdahl while he was Interim President. This clause seems to protect them, and to allow UO to discipline me for my speech?)
The bargaining team has been hammering Rudnick and Gleason on this, they keep backing down, but they are going to need to revise this language a lot.
Blandy enters. ~20 faculty also show up. You missed the nasty part, guys.
Mauer: Can you identify yourself as a UO professor when making protected speech? Green: What about a blog. Rudnick: Should have a disclaimer (whew, I’m good). … Mauer: Lets move on for now and come back to this.
Article 12: Admin’s response on NTTF evaluation and promotion.
Rudnick: I’m just going to walk through to justify my $400 an hour, then Blandy will answer questions since he only gets $75 – what we charge you for a stenographer. (Lots of productive back and forth here, Rudnick’s decibel level is appropriately modest, for once.) Rudnick: We’ve finally figured out librarians. We talked to the librarians, they want to stick to annual. Mauer doesn’t miss a beat “You consulted with them how?” Rudnick: Uh, we talked with their dean, who said everyone was happy over there. (Lots of unusually productive back and forth on this between Rudnick and Mauer, she’s earning a little of her pay this time. Say $150.)
Mauer: Break time. Rudnick: I’ll make a donut run.
Scene II: Still no donuts.
Art 38: University counterproposal on Jury duty. Snoozer.
Art 15: Union counterproposal on Grievance Procedure.
Mauer: Union must have the right to file grievances on behalf of members. E.g. an individual is reluctant to file for fear of retaliation. More than one person might be effected, more efficient for union to file one, rather than many. This is standard procedure. Rudnick: We want to be sure a grievance is about an actual problem that has an impact (OK) and we want to talk to the faculty who are being impacted (what if they want the union to do it?) Don’t want a grievance over, say a difference in interpretation that doesn’t lead to action. Mauer: First is fine, Second not, Third craft some language for us, not a problem. More talk on dates.
Art 16: Union counterproposal on Arbitration.
Mauer: going through this line by line, … agree, disagree, …
Next time: Mauer: You’ll be prepared with more counters next time? Rudnick: yes.
The end. See you in 2 weeks.
Union dues, “fair share” taxes on non-members, released time to do the union’s business at the university’s expense. What a noble exercise in professionalism.
Kudos to Rudnick for always taking the high road.
Maus: Trust us: ‘Deans shall not talk to faculty.’
‘Beyond the yellow brick road of naivete and the mugger’s lane of cynicism, there is a narrow path, poorly lighted, hard to find, and even harder to stay on once found.’ -Kotter
Somebody is being led down a garden path here.
From the administration’s counterproposal on Academic Freedom: “Nothing in this Article affects the University’s right to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”
Rudnick’s position all along has been “trust us.” Now that it comes to academic freedom: it’s “we don’t trust you.”
Never change language without first caucusing.
We don’t have the ‘best and brightest’ on either side here, do we?
And where are you deadwood?
Fat, bloated, and out of control.
‘Me not bad social scientist!”
Rudnick: The existing obstacles are so high that its ability to discipline faculty are very limited.
Fine. So why is she trying to insert a professional ethics clause into the CBA, if not to lower the bar?
I just don’t see the point of including a “responsibility” clause, unless it is to expose faculty to discipline if they violate some line in the “responsibility” portion of the CBA. Rudnick may not intend to use the “responsibility” clause to discipline faculty for speech she finds objectionable. But the university counsel might have different intentions. Or his successor might. Why should faculty trust admin to refrain from using the ammunition their “responsibility” clause gives them?
Ding, ding, ding!
I thought they bargained and we collected.
Berdahl: ‘I wouldn’t know the man from a cord of wood.”
His book on eighteenth-century Prussian conservatives is terrific. I liked it so much, I put it on my comps list!
Right after Moliere’s Misanthrope.
Rudnick says smplify so that is why the proposal is so long… Obscure, obfuscate and more evaluations for faculty.
This is all very negative. How do we create value for UO?
Is there a union CBA negotiation that was positive?
Ethical standards are being reduced from universal principles to perceived consequences.
Does Rudnick imagine that United Academics did not consult with librarians when it put together their proposal on NTT Evaluation and Promotion?
Maus: ‘Thou shall not talk to librarians.’
Why is the union negotiating with Rudnik/Geller on Academic Freedom and Free Speech? The Senate has approved a strong policy, which was brutalized by Geller, but will be back to the Senate this year. (The Administration’s excuse for the delay is that the current Constitution was not in force when that policy was approved by the Senate.) When the Senate again approves a strong policy, the President, who is respectful of the Constitution, will either accept the policy or object to features of it. Should he adopt the latter course, he must defend his position to the Senate in the hope that mutually satisfactory language can be found. If the negotiation fails, the issue will move to the Assembly (the entire Statutory Faculty) for resolution.
The issues of Academic Freedom and Free Speech are too important to be negotiated away by lawyers in a Lillis Hall room. They need the kind of Faculty-wide airing that the Constitution provides for.
The Union negotiators owe it to the Faculty to stick with the policy as it was passed by the Senate.
Get your ass up here old man – there’s an elevator. Mauer is a bulldog on this, as is the entire AAUP, and the entire UAUO bargaining team. You’d be impressed. Rudnick and Blandy and Gleason are the ones who don’t know shit about the Senate proposals – they’re getting this straight from Geller. (Yes, that’s two – I waive the normal one cuss word policy for free speech issues.)
Yes, it is all pretty alarming. It seems to produce more disharmony, mistrust, and conflict than tangible improvement.
Old Man: United Academics worked out its proposals on Academic Freedom and Faculty Self-Governance in close consultation with the Senate President. I cannot say what admin’s proposal is meant to achieve, but can assert that the UA proposal means to protect and strengthen both. The question is no longer whether there will be Academic Freedom and Faculty Self-Governance clauses; that train has left the station. The salient question, rather, is whether you prefer a clause generated by administration or the one generated in consultation with the Senate President for the purpose of reinforcing the University Constitution and academic freedom at the University of Oregon.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind,and you know that notion just crossed my mind.
Good one – these sessions need a sound track!
The Apocalypse is upon us when academic freedom becomes a negotiation bargaining chip.
Read the United Academics proposal.
UO’s on the block, folks. If it goes private, this is all moot.
All the more reason to lock in a strong contract.
Privates have no duty to recognize faculty unions.
Privates don’t have to bargain with faculty unions.
Yes, and we will all be better off subject to the learned wisdom of corporate gods. Goodbye humanities and music and literature…hello vocational school.
…like Stanford.
Sorry,Three-toed Sloth, but, in this vital matter, Interaction of Union with Senate President cannot substitute for the action of the Senate, whose deliberations and actions are open for all to view and are subject to rejection by the Faculty, acting in Assembly. Perhaps the Union will negotiate the following position in its CBA: “Whatever the Faculty at large, acting through its Constitutional governing bodies, establishes as an Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech policy shall be incorporated in this CBA.”
Yes, the humanities and music are so beleaguered at non-unionized schools like Yale, Oberlin, and Berkeley. Who would want those kinds of humanities programs when we could have the ones at unionized schools like SUNY-Buffalo and Rutgers? The level of naivete around this whole union business is stunning. Is adopting a model appropriate for a corporate factory really the savior of the humanities?
Seems like bargaining away shared governance. Too bad there is no Faculty Handbook to reference along with shared governance documents to know what we already have.
And what is being gained? Higher wages? Job Security? Academic Freedom? Being treated like a respected peer and professional? Better benefits? Better working conditions? Union Dues?
If only the Chief Academic, leading professionals, faculty senate, and faculty in general could somehow band together and answer a simple question: what can we do to make the University of Oregon the best academic institution of higher learning it can be? Is it bonding authority? Is it privatization? Becoming a real estate mogul able to buy, sell and mortgage commonwealth for private gain? More NTTF? GTFs teaching more classes? GTFs teaching Grad classes? More 300 seat lectures? more MOOCs and badges?
Oh and this is interesting:
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/02/lawmaker_questions_whether_ind.html
http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letter-there-s-more-behind-the-departure-of-higher-ed/article_77b7fc16-6c4f-11e2-b716-001a4bcf887a.html
http://topics.oregonlive.com/tag/matthew%20donegan/index.html
Privatized U Oregon = Stanford, Yale, Berkeley….?
BWAHH, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA?!?@
OK I’m of the floor now…can we get serious?
Naive indeed.
re “Too bad there is no Faculty Handbook to reference along with shared governance documents to know what we already have.” But, Dear Anonymous, there is a shared governance document. We already have one, and it lays out with clarity the process by which shared governance shall operate. It is called “The Constitution of the University of Oregon” and is easily found online.
So can the faculty senate (or faculty in general) override a presidential veto?
Perhaps as part of this private board movement the faculty senate should be the one entity that with a super majority of all be able to unilaterally fire a president?
Interesting listen, long but it gets good at about the 40 minute mark. (real audio player)
http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2013s/SEDWD-201302071223.ram
or
http://www.leg.state.or.us/cgi-bin/list_archives.cgi?archive.2013s&SEDWD&Education+and+Workforce+Development
February 7
re Presidential veto: By State Law, the President can veto any action of any Committee. By UO Constitution, veto of a Senate Action moves the issue to the Assembly, assuring widespread publicity of the issue. If Prexy vetoes the Assembly and either the Senate or Assembly takes umbrage, it will pass a motion of No Confidence, putting Prexy’s tenure in danger. I’ll be surprised if you can get anything stronger than that.
‘Lots of unusually productive back and forth on this between Rudie and Maus”: Where is the sunlight in that?
Make a PR request to Hubin for the notes the administration is taking. I’m no touch-typist.
Touchy-touchy.
Tenure is the only peer-reviewed thing left in this university, why is the union touching it? dumb dumb dumb stuff
Because they want to control it, along with all the other stuff they’re proposing. Stuff that is now decentralized to department decision. This is centralized control, baby. Sure, departments can keep doing stuff the way they’re doing it now, but they will need the union’s permission to change anything. Unionization IS corporatization. Just like GM.
Nonsensical. I wonder how much of this would go away (or could have gone away) if we separated into a College of Arts and a College of Science, and if Upper Administration paid particularly close attention to giving the Arts a great Dean and helping the Arts side have healthy departmental structures.
great, get the bargaining unit redefined to include only arts and humanities, education, music. leave the rest of us alone.
Amen!
Tim Gleason is behind the child pornography / pedophilia argument – see the live blog for 12/14/12.
So what. No employer with half a brain would agree to this proposal.
So, you’d give it a 95% chance here at UO?
What does the current faculty handbook say about disciplining faculty for things like this? Oh, right.
Actually, the proposal is modeled on the AAUP’s recommended language and several existing contracts.
Prove it.
Take my word for it. But you can look it up yourself. Among the models were the Delaware and Cincinnati contracts, as well as some language recommended by the AAUP in the wake of the Garcetti v. Ceballos decision — a judicial dagger pointed at the heart of academic freedom which the United Acaemics’ language seeks to blunt.
“Executive Summary: Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos (2009)”; http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/postgarcettireport.htm
I looked. The AAUP report doesn’t recommend the language you are proposing.
Do you really think Oregon can hope to be like Delaware or Cincinnati? Dare to dream.