Your Guarantee of Truthiness: All UO Matters bargaining posts are fact-checked by Randy Geller, HLGR, and their lobbyist and public relations consultant Marla Rae. All posts since June 4 have passed Geller’s fact-check people with no corrections – excepting “Bar investigates Rudnick, Gary and Geller for allegations of lack of candor with the tribunal, in an attempt to pad legal fees” They threatened to sue me over the original title, but seem happy with the new version.
Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said or were thinking but were too polite to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.
Synopsis:
- Admin’s shared governance proposal drops all mention of the UO Senate and UO Constitution. Rudnick claims having one faculty member on the UO Board, selected by the Governor, takes care of shared governance.
- Gottfredson’s promises on the Constitution and the UO Senate resolution on including shared governance in the contract go into the JH trash bin.
Prologue:
- UO Trustee names to be public by Aug 19. Rudnick is getting pressure to stop stalling on raises and governance issues. Expect new proposals on both this week, plus an apology for Geller’s info services proposal.
- Financial news for UO has been great. UO got its tuition increases, increased state funding, and state construction bonds. President Gottfredson expects a big boost in donations as a result of the new independent board. VPFA Moffitt is seeking permission to continue to grow reserve funds above 15% ceiling – currently at 17%. Expect good news about raises from the administration’s team, to be presented on Monday or Tuesday.
- Geller is still stalling on releasing latest HLGR invoices, and his office’s audits of Rudnick’s billings. I’m guessing the total is $750K by now.
- OUS is still stalling on release of its report on UO’s legal service contracting, originally scheduled for February.
- JH admits faculty have left over low salaries, and that UO is *not* “under-administrated.” Canoe Group report on UO Portland shows JH confusion and money wasting. Decision on renewing $2.4M annual White Stag lease due soon.
- President Gottfredson’s report on the Senate motion to cut athletic subsidies, shift $2.5M to academic budget due any day.
Cast: Usuals, less Gleason and Mauer. Gleason sidles in late.
Live-blog:
Rudnick: Admin will have their proposal to squash academic freedom and some governance stuff today. All their economics will be ready Tu, at 9AM.
Art 7: Admin on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.
Cecil: Is there a page missing? Rudnick: Whoops, I’ll get that fixed later. Give these back.
Art 3: Admin on Shared Governance
Rudnick: New shit has come to light with SB 270. My take: No union grievances or arbitration over shared governance issues – to be resolved among the Trustees, Faculty, and President. Not a word about the UO Senate or the UO Constitution. Gottfredson blows off Senate resolution calling for incorporation of the Constitution in the contract. Many other faculty unions have this, not a problem for them. For some reason it’s a deal-breaker for President Gottfredson and his new trustees.
Rudnick: “UO Trustees will be the University of Oregon. Having a faculty member on that board it is not only shared governance it is direct faculty governance.” Oh wow, what a bunch of bull. Rudnick: We took out the constitution because the Board has the power to revoke or revise it.
Cecil: So the “UO Trustees” are now “The University”? Rudnick: Yes.
Rudnick is visibly nervous and apologetic presenting this stuff. Blandy, Gleason keep their heads down, trying to avoid eye contact with the faculty.
Cecil: What would be your objection to us including the Constitution? Rudnick, still nervous, claims that because there’s one faculty on the board shared governance is all accounted for.
Cecil: Sounds like you are trying to replace the Senate and Constitution with one faculty on the board? Rudnick: We’re not proposing to replace the Senate, but the UO Board can do that without recourse from the faculty.
Green: What if the faculty member doesn’t even get a vote. Would you still call that shared governance? Rudnick: Yes.
Photographer starts taking pictures. Rudnick: Why are you taking pictures? Photog: RG is doing a story on you. Rudnick: Nice of you to ask permission. He snaps away. Get a good one of Gleason reading UO Matters on his iPad. Whoops, he just read that and turned it away.
Rudnick: We will not agree to make shared governance grievable, because we don’t have to. Go deal with the Board!
Bramhall: Our language about role of the faculty input into long rang objectives, resources. Why did you take that out? Rudnick: Because faculty will have no authority. Pratt: We had that language in to ensure faculty input.
Cecil: So, we can add more detail on faculty input, given the SB 270 changes? Rudnick: Whatever. You won’t have any recourse, since we’re not going to let you make it grievablem uch less let you got to arbitration.
Long back and forth. Gleason speaks, Rudnick keeps talking over him, waving her hands.
Rudnick: “If the board does something that violates shared governance you cannot grieve it.”
This was of course precisely why the Senate voted to ask Gottfredson to include the Senate and the Constitution in the contract. At the bargaining session with Rob Kyr we were told that was a no go, but that specific aspects of shared governance could be included, and grievable and arbitrable. Now we’ve lost even that. Rudnick is willing to bend on trivial parts of policies, but those grievances stop at the Provost, making them a waste of time. So there!
Davidson on Sec 3: About that claim that the faculty has a role in direct governance. Is there any explicit mechanism to ensure that the one faculty member on the board is somehow representative of the entire faculty? Rudnick: I have no idea.
Psaki: A lot of the things you list – grading, curriculum – sound like my job, not the board’s. Rudnick: Board has the authority, they may delegate it to you. So, they want to change Blandy’s giveaway AAD grading curve, they can:
Good. The Senate has dropped the ball on grade inflation like this. Someone needs to take charge, or at least threaten to.
Art 7: Admin’s on Academic Freedom and Responsibility:
Rudnick: We think it’s important to separate academic freedom, first amendment, shared governance so we can chip away at them one at a time. Your preamble extended freedom from just teaching to research, we agree to that. Union had objections to our proposal to allow us to discipline faculty for free speech they might make as individuals, we agree to take that out, since it turns out there’s this thing called the first amendment.
So if you criticize UO internally or externally and it’s protected by the first amendment – i.e. they are not defamatory statements about bill padding by some law firm – you can’t be disciplined by UO.
Cecil: Someone publishes an Op-Ed and says something over the top. Gleason: You are asking if tortious statements would be subject to discipline? Rudnick jumps in: I think she is saying that you could be subject to discipline *if* the speech was defamatory. Cecil is awesome on this stuff.
Rudnick: If your speech violates the first amendment – i.e. you defame me in a blog headline – you can then be disciplined by UO.
So, do you have to win that in court first Sharon? Key point here: Does she have to win in court before UO can discipline me, or can Geller or some other disciplinarian just assert it was defamation and start an internal discipline process?
Cecil: So explain again when you can discipline faculty for free speech? Not constitutionally protected and related to UO?
Me: This question is still hanging fire.
Lunch break, they’ll be back at 2.
3:10. Sorry, I missed an hour, back now. Cast of characters now includes Barbara Altmann, VPAA and the author of the admin team’s fact check blog:
But you’ll have to pay for answers:
Dear Mr. Harbaugh:
The University of Oregon has received your ammended public records request for “1) the names and contact information of all of the editors and writers for the website http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/, on 4/11/2013, 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 $285.98.
They’re now on Art 12, NTTF review and promotion:
Cecil and Blandy are having it out over up and out for librarians, unless we’re going to give them tenure. They have up or out, but no tenure? Apparently they are tenured at all other OUS universities. Deb Carver wants up or out but not tenure, apparently librarians not so sure.
Green asks questions, Rudnick shouts at her: “Please don’t talk to me in that tone!”
Psaki: In 2009 I was on review committee, did 26 interviews with librarians. I heard they love excellence, but are perplexed why they are the only group that does not get tenure. I had individual meetings because at the group meetings they were not comfortable talking about it.
Altmann: Seems like some of those concerns could be addressed in house. Psaki: Why not make it part of the contract, like we do for everyone else? Gleason sounds like he’s starting to look for a compromise, then blows it by mischaracterizing what Psaki said. Davidson: Sounds like librarians are afraid to talk to their management. Rudnick: OK, I’ll give you that the librarians are telling you they don’t like it. Library Council admins want it, so there it is.
Cecil: I’ll be blunt, since you asked for it. The librarians don’t trust Deb Carver. Rudnick: Then they can file a grievance if they think procedures weren’t followed. We are not going to change the up or out policy! Cecil: Help me understand why up or out is key to library excellence?
Green: You go through up or out as a librarian, but you still don’t get tenure? Seems grossly unfair. We’ve talked to a lot more people than the library council you keep talking about. They are afraid. Altmann: It is a problem, but not one we can address through bargaining.
Rudnick: I’m no librarian, but the library administrators tell us up-or-out is crucial to excellence.
Altmann: Can I ask you a genuine question? Is there a history of people getting turned down for promotion? I’ve approved all the cases I’ve got in my year or two on the job. Psaki: Two denied over the past few years, and turnover. Rudnick: This contract will make the procedures more transparent, should reduce problems. Green: Why no tenure? Rudnick: It’s the Library Council’s judgement. Altmann: Tenure would be stressful for them too. Psaki: So, all the stress, then no tenure?
Gleason: Talks, stumbles, not moving the discussion forward. Pauses, repeats what everyone else has said. Be prepared next time Tim, you might contribute something useful.
Green goes back to fairness and union support from the librarians. We represent them. Rudnick: “That’s fine. But the fact they don’t trust Deb Carver is not a compelling reason to change up-or-out.” Green: Reason is to improve their working conditions and morale. Employment 101. Rudnick: I’m sure it would be less stressful if they didn’t have to be reviewed, but up-or-out is “important to the well being of the library.”
Cecil: Moving on to Section 9, grammar change, def’n of portfolio… Altmann: Change comprehensive portfolio to representative portfolio? Back and forth, minor changes, productive. Rudnick to Blandy: “Is that the right list?” Blandy speaks: “Dean”.
Rudnick: So they only sticking point is the librarians and some review period language.
Cecil: Tenure and promotion? Rudnick and Altmann: We’ve got a meeting, gotta end this now.
Rudnick: We will have all 7 economic proposals Tuesday. Given them to you all, only clarifying questions til they’re all on the table? Cecil: OK.
We’ll be back at 9AM Tuesday.
14.5% over three years, or fight.
Is anyone calling her on this bullshit?
Why would the union call her on it? Gottfredson wants to destroy the Senate’s power, and this will leave the union as the only game in town. Both sides agree.
If the Senate loses all power and ‘the Union’ is then the only counterpower to JH, then there might some union staff somewhere that would kinda-sorta like that. But I can tell you from experience that most faculty, including those involved in union leadership, and local union staff would *hate* it, because it removes what could be a very good avenue to make changes at the university, and an avenue that can be significantly qualitatively different than a union contract.
Don’t overthink this, anon. It’s not a question of “if” the Senate loses all power, only when. Rudnick is signalling exactly what the plan is: get rid of the Senate and the Constitution ASAP, or at least make them ornamental only.
The State governing body has always had the power to get rid of the Senate/Constitution. This is nothing new except that the new Institutional Board may have more motive to do so. Either way, the faculty, union or not, will have to stand up in great numbers to fight any such attempts.
“This is nothing new except…” In other words, this is *new*.
The power to get rid of the Constitution/Senate isn’t new. The potential for different motives is new.
So, you win on snark but you got the point, right?
It appears, Capt. Obvious, you are deliberately trying to change the focus and soft sell the administration view. “The power to get rid of the Constitution/Senate isn’t new” … and so what? That’s not really germane to the point at hand, is it? But to use that blind to say “nothing is new” glosses over something very real and VERY new which you claim is just a “potential for different motives”. When the Foundation came out pushing for a board with no real faculty involvement, those motives became more than just potentially suspect. When the new trustees want to be called “the University”, then their motives are more than potentially suspect.
This leaves the union as the only effective voice for the UO Faculty. What is Gottfredson thinking? Is he?
As mentioned previously, Gottfredson is a placeholder. He’s never been the one making the calls and he’s not getting paid “to think” about it.
Thank you UO Matters, our faculty Bargaining Team members, and UA staff for exposing the contd. effort to sell out shared governance at UO by this Admin. This will need to come to a fight, and this Admin would be well advised not to force a fight over shared governance. They may win a small battle here or there, but THEIR legacy will be one that is forever recognized as a stain on this institution’s history. The choice is so easy, work with faculty in the senate AND the union; faculty are so ready to work collaboratively with Admin on elevating this institution to it potential, and shared governance is a must.
And whoever the Anon is who made such an idiotic, uninformed comment above about how the Admin and union want the Senate gone… get your head out. Faculty leadership in the union do NOT want the Senate to go; we want it strengthened. My colleagues active in our union saw the threats to shared governance coming long before this fight and prepared for a virtuous struggle to preserve faculty voice in this institution and higher ed in general. Get active in the union or the senate to help and place blame where it belongs.
You’re welcome, but where’s my cheap gin?
The union gave away our ability to strike. Gottfredson is doing away with the Senate. (How are you liking the new position you’re in now, Margie?) Governance is not grievable. How does this add up to a better UO post-union?
So far, the only upside to unionizing seems to be uncovering the sad state of relations between the administrators and the University. They pretty much suck ass.
They didn’t give away our ability to strike. They said they’d give it up for the duration of the contract. And with todays governance news that is looking like it’s a long ways away.
The only upside is what, Anon? Let’s see, who lobbied to PREVENT a faculty seat on the IG board? UO Foundation. Who lobbied to make sure we got a seat? United Academics, UO facutly working with colleagues from PSU. Yes, the struggle has exposed the “suck ass” rift. But the union campaign has done more to put brakes on the power grab than you might imagine. The underlying “suck ass” rift was already there, as you imply, but now we are getting it out to the surface and exposing the festering mess. Yes, the sad state of relations has been exposed, but the wound has existed for some time, decades as far as I can tell. Sometimes a good conflict is needed to bring the underlying issues to the surface. This is what we are seeing, in my view, the festering blister from a very good public institution being forced to conform (from decades of dramatic state funding cuts) to a corporate model of soliciting investor/donors, selling its good name to marketers, and abandoning affordable access to students (like so many other higher ed institutions in this era). Just wish the Admin could see (or had the courage to pursue?) ways to attract and build private support that do not require abandon of the constitution, shutting faculty out of shared governance, or stifling academic freedom. But that might mean listening to faculty in the first place.
Why are Administration running this institution into the ground?
It’s so clear what’s going on.
Everyone’s expendable here.
Is it the admins or is it the new owners? The ballsy pronouncement today that UO Trustees are now “The University” pretty much explains it.
Rob Kyr tried to broker a compromise. Gottfredson would have none of it. This is all so destructive.
Indeed. Rob brought a solid intention to honor the Senate resolution, sat at the bargaining table and listened to Rudnick; but this effort to compromise on governance has not been reciprocated by the Admin. Instead, we get their new unitary model of governance thrown at us. I am befuddled as to how folks in Admin think their contd. resistance to plain and simple shared governance articles will do anything other than erode all remaining legitimacy for their authority.
This is no excuse for MG, but I don’t think he is paying any attention to the bargaining sessions. The shit you are getting smells like vintage Randy Geller. Some one should tell MG (who may, or may not care) that what little remains of his on-campus reputation is being demolished by Rudnick and her advisors.
The Trustees could require that all faculty to teach online versions of their classes. All their notes, lectures, and presentations are property of UO. Grades will be set by board policy. They can change the textbooks and the required readings. And neither the Senate nor the union contract could stop this? Do I have this right?
As long as you let the Trustees synch with the NSA for mutual reporting, you should be good to go.
Dog
1. That’s never going to happen re: ON line
2. Maybe the Trustees might require that all faculty actually teach and/or teach a “normal” load.
sad, sad, sad, all around, and to think many of us once loved this place. truth and reconciliation, where are you?
wasn’t the senate the last thing that Emperor Palpatine dismantled after he took power. Then he just regional delegates (seat on the board) to control the star systems.
Everyone needs to rewatch star wars, I think we have a sith lord in our mist….
I believe that the regional governors had control of their territories. Fear kept the local systems in line. Fear of [that] battle station.
That’s what Jaime is doing with the reserves . They are building a death star!