The admininstration’s fact checkers have found an error in my post below. Quoting:
Claim: UO Matters blogger Bill Harbaugh is also acting as an economic consultant for United Academics. Tuesday, when the UA bargaining team left the table to caucus, he went with the team. But that doesn’t mean he can get his numbers right. His post from the July 23 bargaining session garbles some of the numbers in the University’s latest salary package. Rather than repeat Harbaugh’s erroneous chart, see below.
Fact: We’ll use Harbaugh’s format with the correct numbers:
NTTFs:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 0% Equity.
2015: 1.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 0% Equity.
2014: 1% of current NTTF salary in a pool for floors.
6% raises for promotions.TTF’s:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 0% Equity.
2015: 0.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 1% Internal Equity.
8% raises for promotions.
(I’d transposed the 2015 TTF and NTTF equity %’s.) I appreciate their careful reading of UO Matters and these corrections, which I’ve also made to the original post below. These seem to be the only errors – either type I or type II – which the administration’s well paid consulting team has found in this post, or in any of my other bargaining posts, since their June 4 fact-check.
How well paid are they? I sent UO’s public records $214.50 for the latest invoices last Th, but Geller is still sitting on them. But Rudnick’s firm, just one of the three UO has hired, charged UO $55,797.38, just for February:
I regret my error. I retract my percentages. I hope Ms Rudnick and her team will accept my apology:
Tuesday 7/23/2013, 9AM – 4PM. 122 Knight Library. I’ll live blog it.
Your Guarantee of Truthiness: All UO Matters bargaining posts are publicly fact-checked by Geller and Rudnick’s secret team of consultants.
Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said or were thinking but were too polite to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.
Synopsis:
- After actively participating in the discussion about Deb Carver yesterday, the admin team now seems to be claiming that the union team and UO Matters may have violated UO’s respectful workplace policy by repeating criticisms of Carver raised by union members from the library – criticisms which Rudnick, and I believe Gleason, repeated word for word during the discussion without raising any objections.
- Admin’s last proposal was for 10.5% raises (spread over last year and the 2 years of the contract). The union counter was 14.5%. Despite the fact that all the financial news broke UO’s way, the UO administration proposal for today is also for 10.5%.
Prologue:
- At session XXIX a visibly nervous Rudnick announced that having a single faculty member on the 11-15 person UO Board is “more than shared governance – it’s direct governance”.
- 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.
- 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: The usuals, including Barbara Altmann. No Mauer, looks like all the faculty volunteers and a few spectators so far.
Live-blog:
Library: Blandy: No denied promotions in last 10 years. Blandy then calls out the faculty bargaining team for commenting on what the librarians think of Deb Carver – comments which Ms Rudnick and I believe others on the admin team repeated word-for-word during the discussion. It went on for about 30 minutes. Rudnick, Gleason, Blandy, and Altmann were all there, none of them raised any objections at the time to what was being said. Blandy and Altmann are both UO VP’s with responsibility for personnel matters, and presumably some understanding of what sorts of discussion is appropriate. Again, none of them raised even the smallest objection at the time.
Blandy then goes after UO Matters for blogging about what was said at a public meeting – what does that first amendment say again? – and brings up the “respectful workplace” policy:
We recognize that the demands of our jobs and stressful challenges in our work and personal lives can occasionally lead to moments of impatience and irritability. However, we want to take this opportunity to remind you that, regardless of the provocation or reason, it is never appropriate or acceptable to vent frustrations or conduct workplace business by yelling, using profanity or acting in a demeaning or verbally abusive way.
Take note, Ms Rudnick.
Psaki responds to Blandy: I kept the exact information I was given and the names confidential. Blandy: That breaches confidentiality. Psaki: That’s not clear. Gleason: Change should be based on facts, which we will hide from you whenever possible, not unsubstantiated comments. Psaki: I have utmost respect for Deb Carver, but it was necessary to bring that information forward, given what the admin bargaining team was claiming about “the librarians” when in fact it was the “library council”. Green: I like Deb Carver and think she’s done an amazing job. My statements were a direct response to the statements you made and how it conflicted with the information we got from the librarians. Sorry it came out as an ad hominem attack, but the information needed to get on the table. I thought yesterday’s session was honest and productive and it’s too bad it was interpreted as a personal attack.
Art 13, Tenure and promotion:
Cecil: Explicit weights for teaching, research and service. Typically 40/40/20. Some departments don’t make their weights explicit. Individual exceptions fine, make it clear. Goes through a bunch of minor corrections to the admin proposal.
Union and admin agree that decision not to waive confidentiality of letters shall not be considered in tenure decision. Weird, why not?
Blandy on post-tenure review: Seems standard. Pratt: What’s in the “sabbatical portfolio”? Blandy: depends what sabbatical was about. Anyone seen Bean’s? More word-smithing, this article is almost done. Admin’s to revise.
Diane Dietz from the RG shows up. Rudnick starts sucking up to faculty team. Altmann leaves.
Economics: Why isn’t UO’s VPFA here to present the economics? Bizarre.
Rudnick: Questions about AHA – yes, it has a deficit, there’s a plan to fix it. (There’s been a plan for years). Then claims it’s funded by receipts, not general fund. Pratt: So who pays the bills?
Foundation and development costs. Rudnick: Foundation is making a significant investment and Foundation has taken over part of running the campaign from development.
Pratt: Is the amount of GF money going to development increasing? Rudnick: Yes, but I won’t give you any details.
Rudnick: You asked about athletics. Shows the usual budget stuff that the IAC made the AD start posting. Emphasizes the point that AD pays $9 million to UO for tuition, fees. Yes, she thinks the faculty should be grateful that the athletics department pays us for teaching their student-athletes.
Rudnick claims UO pays no GF dollars to athletics, rather it’s the other way around. “I know you will quibble, but these are the facts.”
Green, Cecil quibble, and ask about Jock Box. Rudnick: That’s an academic program. Sure it is.
Rudnick: Goes on the the AD’s overhead assessments, which I got increased by $555K per year – but not retroactively.
Rudnick: UO (she means the academic side) pays a portion on the debt on the Arena land. It’s $467K a year. Because of the secret Frohnmayer / Kilkenny MOU that Harbaugh had to petition the DOJ to get UO to release. Rudnick gets quite pissy about the Jock Box subsidies.
Gottfredson on ending athletic subsidies: (Inserted post-session, when it finally showed up on the Senate website):
His words are very different than the angry, dismissive ones we got from Sharon Rudnick and Tim Gleason today, when these subsidies were raised in bargaining.
This is much better than I expected:
One intent of the resolution is to ensure that athletics is paying an appropriate
share of the costs associated with tutoring and advising of student athletes
and for the arena. This is clearly an appropriate aim and one with which I am
fully supportive. More analysis needs to be undertaken to ascertain the nature
of these obligations while preserving legitimate expectations derived from the
existing agreements. We will expeditiously work to resolve these issues in
collaboration with athletics.
Of course these are just words and not actions.
This letter is now 2 weeks old. So, has Gottfredson’s position on this changed, is he telling different people different things, or did his bargaining team not get the memo?
Rudnick: On to the Economics. We’ve spent a lot of time listening to your concerns, in concert with Jamie Moffitt who is not here. This is our best effort to find money, but it’s not another ultimatum proposal.
Release time: We won’t let union buy out of courses, too much trouble.
Sabbaticals: 60%, 75%, 100% of salary for 3,2,1 quarters perspectively. Cecil: Why not 85% for two terms? I ask because we may want to put together a whole economic package and need to know how you’ve costed this out. Rudnick: We want to put most of the money into across the board raises, but we are open to hearing what you think is important. Cecil: We’ll try to do our best to help you.
Benefits: No money for child-care, admin will give a second child tuition discount for particularly fecund faculty. If you are using the OUS discount for a child (go anywhere in system), you can get a UO specific discount for a second child. Best estimate, if 30% of those using the first discount take a second, is that this will cost $250K, or less than Jim Bean. Seems a little high.
Leaves: Rudnick: No benefits kick in until 0.5 FTE. Sec 20: Grants can’t pay for vacation time. So Officer’s of Research don’t get vacations. Whoops, Rudnick’s confused, will go back and look at this. Sick leave bank: “No interest in exploring it.” Cecil: What’s the admin burden you are seeking to avoid? Rudnick: We had a significant discussion “We are just not interested in the sick leave bank or a discussion about a sick-leave bank.” “That’s really the whole answer!” Gleason: The entire management team looked at sick-leave banks and said no. It’s that simple.
Cecil: What happens if a 0.49 FTE instructor has the flu for 2 weeks? Rudnick: No sick leave until you get to 0.5 FTE, they’d have to take LWOP. But currently no one is docking their pay.
Retirement Benefits: The day after saying she would never negotiate about the pickup, Rudnick is now noegotiating on this. New language says that if the legislature takes away the pickup, faculty gets it as salary. If the legislature takes away the pickup and the money to pay for the pickup, faculty get screwed. (My understanding of Kitzhaber’s proposal on this was that employees would be made whole.)
What have the other unions been able to bargain on this?
Rudnick: We’d let you take this one to an arbitrator if there was a disagreement.
Pratt: Suppose state appropriations went down, but tuition went up? Rudnick: This is why we wanted to bargain this if it happened. Pratt: So, why not say if it’s not neutral we have to bargain? Rudnick: That’s what we’ve been advocating. Remember, if this happens the JH administrators will take the hit too. They’ll be on your side this time!
Health insurance: Rudnick: This says 90/10 split on costs, actually DAS has settled with SEIU for 95/5 and we will change this to give you the same ASAP. Cecil: And money for health care for part-timers? Rudnick: No, we want to put the money into raises. Cecil: Actually, SEIU got a better deal for the future. Rudnick: I haven’t seen it.
Salaries: Rudnick: We moved money around, but there’s no new salary in here. 10.5% for TTF, 11.5% for NTTF’s. There is no more money, we’ve spent it all on other things, or we plan too.
We added back internal equity and focused on compression for TTFs, floor for NTTF’s.
Cecil: 1% pool for NTTF’s is about $500K. How much of a floor will that get? Rudnick: We don’t expect that to be enough money to get all NTTF’s to the floors.
Union’s proposal from 6/6/2013:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 9/16/2012.
2014: 2% ATB, 2% Merit, 2.5% Equity.
2015: 2% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 1% Equity.
2014: 3% of current NTTF salary in a pool for floors.
10% raises for promotions.
Six weeks later, and the admin’s come back with:
NTTFs:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 0% Equity.
2015: 1.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 0% Equity.
2014: 1% of current NTTF salary in a pool for floors.
6% raises for promotions.
TTF’s:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 0% Equity.
2015: 0.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 1% Internal Equity.
8% raises for promotions.
(Note: Thanks to an anonymous commenter, and to Ms Rudnick and Mr. Geller, for correcting these numbers, some of which I’d transposed when I first posted them.)
Cecil: Caucus until 1. We’ll be back.
As we leave Rudnick offers to make the 1.5% retro to 9/16/2012 if the union will sign today. Nice try.
1:06. We’re back, but Rudnick wants a private talk with Cecil first. Done.
Rudnick and Blandy come back in looking totally pissed about something. Gleason same, as ever.
Cecil: We’ll go through your economics in order.
Release time: Our understanding was that course buyouts for union officers during bargaining would be too much work for central administrators? Rudnick: Your turn Tim. Gleason: Not too much work, too much time off for faculty. Rudnick corrects him: it’s the administrative time. Cecil: Huh? Gleason: It’s both. Rudnick: On top of all the other administrative burdens this union is creating.
Cecil: Let’s caucus.
We’re back: Pratt: WTF? We’ve been doing this bargaining for 30 sessions now. We’ve written articles rationalizing a host of issues that the university has never bothered to write down or has done as special deals for their friends. (Yup. In 2007 UO’s accreditors noted how bad JH has been about this and demanded improvements. JH promised to do better, but didn’t. ) Saying you will not give us release time, while you get $300 an hour, and Blandy and Gleason are paid to do this as part of their regular jobs, is totally bogus!
Davidson: NTTF policies have been a disaster at UO. The union is fixing that. Have some respect for what we’ve done.
Pratt: We are offering to *pay* for this release time!
Anderson: We’ve done all the work consulting with the faculty, writing policies – things you’ve never done. As a former department head I don’t understand your intransigence or your argument this is a huge burden.
Rudnick is looking seriously upset. I wonder what happened when she went back to confer with JH today?
Cecil: It would be sweet if you could explain a few things, Sharon. You haven’t moved an inch on salary. After our last proposal you said you couldn’t respond until OUS approved tuition, legislature set budget and PERS rates. That all went your way. So WTF on the refusal to increase your offer?
Rudnick: (Screw it, you know what she’s saying.) Gleason: One new thing is we can only raise tuition 3.5% next time on in-states.
Cecil: Last time you gave us an angry lecture about compromise. Where are you at with that anger now?
Blandy: That was our last best offer. Sure, it will still leave you at the bottom of the AAU, too bad. It’s not like we’ve stated a goal to get you up to their midpoint or anything like that, say in the 2000 Senate whitepaper. Not like any former President’s have said that was “job number one”.
Rudnick: We’ve been so reasonable. There is no more money! And anyway we want to spend it on the White Stag building, Bean’s sinecure, and athletics. We’d like you to respect that, even if you disagree with it. Can I finish? We’ve put tables on the table that address your concerns.
(Odd, she’s not blaming thing on Gottfredson and Geller today.)
Cecil: Will you show us your budget? Rudnick: Make a request, I don’t know that you’ll get it.
Blandy: “Moffitt already supplied you that in great detail”:
Pratt: In the past you’ve ask us for suggestions on how to readjust priorities. Now you won’t even tell us how you plan to spend money. You have said you have the ability to readjust your spending. So just do it. How else are we going to get to AAU peers? You are going into a billion dollar capital campaign. Why not make a salary proposal that addresses UO’s stated priorities? You’ve got the best budget in years, you’ve got $150M in reserves, and we’re arguing about $8M a year.
Rudnick: Just so you know, there were discussions about cuts, but we are not going to show you what those plans were, I’m just going to bullshit you about them and ask the faculty to believe me. And one more thing – you are being unrealistic.
And one more thing: it’s unrealistic for you to expect President Gottfredson to do anything to address external equity, just because President’s and Frohnmayer and Lariviere said it was job number one.
Gleason: The President has made his position on AAU priorities very clear, he’s just not willign to put up any money to deal with external equity. I’d appreciate you not to characterize his refusal to prioritize spending money on it as a lack of prioritization! He’s shouting now.
Rudnick interrupts again, not liking Gleason’s words here. We’re giving you $14M! It’s an enormous amount of money! This uinversity has significantly lower resources, especially now that we’re spending $2 million a year on jock box tutoring! There’s a balancing act here, and you are gettign downweighted.
Blandy: We’ve heard your dismay about external equity, but we’re not going to spend money on it.
Psaki: In 2008 the plan was explicitly to bring faculty to parity with comparators. We keep sliding back. (True: Average Assistants and Associate pay *decreased* last year. WTF?)
Green: Lariviere said he had the money. Were did you spend it? Why no movement? Why should we trust you when you keep saying different things and won’t show us the numbers. We don’t trust you! It’s not like faculty have low morale, it’s that they are pissed and they don’t trust the administration and they want to see JH keep the promises that it has made time after time after time. Thirteen years after the white paper and we’ve gone no where. You keep saying we are lucky to get money in a down economy – but tuition and enrollment, particularly out-of-state, is way, way up. Where is the money going? Why is this not Gottfredson’s number one priority?
Cecil: So, you didn’t budge. Were do we go now. How do we fix this? Rudnick: I don’t know. I have no reason to disagree with the fact you are saying you don’t trust your administration. We honestly believe we are being generous.
Cecil goes after the Jock Box subsidies. Gleason flips out and starts yelling. Cecil calls for caucus. As the faculty leaves, Rudnick yells at them to get Cecil under control.
We’re back:
Cecil: So, where do we go on salaries? Rudnick: I don’t have anything more for you today. Cecil: Yeah. Rudnick: Lets make a plan for Wed and next week. Cecil: We’re looking at a situation where you say this is all the money you have. We’ve had suggestions on how to get more, you’ve ignored them. Not productive to continue this. Rudnick: Maybe we can have some secret conversations away from the table about process.
Rudnick: You are welcome to counter on raises, and Gottfredson will consider it. But maybe a break is a good idea. Tomorrow we will come back with a few other non-economic proposals. Maybe do more secret small group meetings at my office.
Psaki: I think you are saying that the 2011 Lariviere raises raised us a long way to AAU peers, and that these new raises will do this? Rudnick: I don’t have the numbers, but I will see what’s there. Psaki: Thanks, since you say parity is still a shared goal, these numbers would be helpful. Cecil: Yes, there was a lot of secrecy about those raises, this would be helpful. Rudnick: Let me see what I can find.
That’s it for today, see you Wed at 9AM. 1PM.
Dog on Carver
Short version because long version has way to many bad words in it.
Personal attacks run rampant at the UO due, I believe, to its collective measure of insecurity. Generally speaking, when such an attack occurs in a public forum, people a) let it go and b) apologize later and say “well, that’s not what I really meant”. That’s all bullshit (1)
You might do a) and b) in a private setting but not a public one. To proclaim in public that the ‘staff’ does not trust a specific person is puerile. Why not instead says something like “there are elements of dissatisfaction in the library with respect to its administration” – a generically true statement that does not target anyone. Yet, this was not done. Why?
You can put things out on the “table” in much better ways than was done.
In addition, it is a violation of privilege to reveal private administrator review details of which the commentators had access because they were on that review. That is completely unprofessional – yet it serves as a microcosm of the main problem, in my view, at the UO. Given almost any opportunity we will act unprofessional and throw random people under that proverbial bus. In the long run, this does nothing other than to produce a highly alienated and polarized culture.
If you got something to say in a public from,
then say it with a level of common decency and respect in a context that is professional.
Is that really too hard to do?
Respectfully, can we get Bill to do that too?
Dog says
I don’t know if you can reform UOmatters verbiage style; and I am not
sure that even matters. This blog, while public accessible, is not what
I would call a “public forum”. Whoever this “Bill” guy is, its likely he
is well-behaved in the public sphere.
So UO matters is an alternate ego for him?
Dog
no, its an alternate ego for the rest of us
oooh.. Rudnick just did an amazing eye roll!
Tit for tat. They don’t move, we don’t move.
Many labs hire a research technician who is a just-graduated student wanting to beef up their experience for grad school or medical school. The usual expectation is that the person will stay with the lab for 1-3 years, which is barely enough time to be trained in the protocols and background. As such, the value of that employee is much less than a post-doc or a grad student. A salary floor, as I am understanding it, will make this arrangement unattractive. Now, I also think all these positions (tech, post-doc, grad student) should have higher salaries, but until there is change at the federal level that isn’t going to happen. But it would be unfortunate if a salary floor removes this “starting technician” option for new grads.
I frankly doubt that the Union will make any more headway on salary issues until it brings back the strike option and threatens to use it. As a full professor, I find the admin’s salary counteroffer insulting. UO is in the best financial position ever, yet it can’t scrape up enough to make faculty salaries more competitive? I would rather strike at the start of classes than accept these lackluster terms.
For the umpteenth time, United Academics did not give up the strike option. It offered to do so as part of the comprehensive collective bargaining agreement. But until the the CBA has been negotiated and ratified, all options are on the table.
As the sloth notes, strike is available. Their proposal today (*and their intransigence yesterday on shared governance, which was also a smack at the Senate) will no doubt force a serious assessment of strategy. Why the Admin decided to push faculty into this corner is a moral quandary to me. But when full accounts of this story are made, it will be the Admin and their advisers who sink on the moral evaluation. History (and the AAU) will not be forgiving when the full scope of what is happening here (and to higher ed elsewhere) unfolds in the wake of this Admin faithfully pursuing a unitary model of governance that has no place in higher ed.
Dog
are you fuckin’ (1) kidding me.
This admin proposal is dog-shit (2)
TTF’s:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 0% Equity.
2015: 0.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit, 1% Internal Equity.
6% raises for promotions.
1. Promotion raises (at least to full now
stand at 10%)
2. The last raise (an equity raise) was in May 2011 and now the cumulative admin offer is 5% presumably to be implemented by fall 2013?
The sucks, it should be at least double that amount.
This sucks. If those numbers are correct then Let’s strike.
re: (1) and (2) above
this is fuckin’ dog-shit (now UOmatters, those words don’t count because they are not complete Queen’s english cuss words.)
Strike? I second.
Can I propose that the faculty take out a full page ad in the NYT declaring ourselves on the market? Invite people to come check us out, make us offers, make entire departments offers.
Oooh… private talks usually mean she’s wanting to ask for more respect. That’s going to cost her.
So union reps, what do you do now with the economics and other elements? Amongst the bargaining team it sure sounds like it is time to layout what you have prioritized as the ‘must haves’ and ‘nice to haves’ since this University Admin team is not giving an inch. Do you give in order to get an agreement or start moving into another academic year without one? (A path I am sure that the Admin would love since it allows for more of the same to continue.) I assume there is a game plan?
My two cents is that it is time for Margie Paris, the new Senate President, along with Robert Kyr, to get into MG’s office and tell him in no uncertain terms how F***d this whole thing is and that his chance of regaining any good will is close to gone — or gone. Better yet, maybe MG would have a meeting with these two folks and one senior faculty member on the union team like Scott Pratt. Perhaps a chance for Pratt to try to broker something. Let’s try to take Rudnick and the merry cast of UO buffoons out along with Cecil — who I think is actually doing a great job. Try to see if there can be a candid and forwardly oriented meeting between two colleagues — then let the negotiators do something once an agreement is made in principle. Crazy idea? I, for one, expected this whole thing to be full of rancor — it is an adversarial process after all — but MG’s clear desire to stay away and not weigh in erodes any chance of good coming out of this. At this point it is imperative that there is no question of plausible deniability with him.
I like the spirit of this proposal, but doubt MG will go for it. It’s looking more and more like we’re headed for arbitration and/or a strike.
I like the inspiration behind your proposal too. I wish I had a sliver of confidence that MG would respond to such a request. Are you listening, surprise us? Many faculty remain – ever so reluctantly – open to a process where the UO moves forward with some mutual respect between faculty and Admin. The reservoir of good will among faculty runs deep, but won’t last forever, not with these kinds of proposals from the Admin team.
Just screw it all. Arbitration.
Hopefully the faculty are still here when it is resolved.
Negotiations failed. Move on. Call in those who have the authority to open up the books.
The UO negotiators sound like the worst kind of private sector vulture capitalists; sitting on tons of cash but want to squash all below and squeeze the highest margins. And damn the consequences. Amazing and gross. Arbitration sounds like a bad deal for faculty. These power grubs gamed this, no doubt, to keep shared governance on their terms. Strike… now that might shake these power hungry bastards. First week of fall term. What pitiful leadership at this place that they cannot see how easy it would be to settle on good terms.
Where’s Coltrane?
Yes, where the hell is Coltrane?!?
Waiting to step in as interim President after Gottfredson implodes?
505
I’d stop negotiating. Demand that the president attend the next session. If he won’t, start organizing a strike.
You know, I began this process with serious doubts about whether we were wise to form a union. No more doubts.
Folks, Might MG’s distance from the negotiations reflect his disdain for Faculty Unions rather than for Faculty?
No.
He’s been no better with the Constitution… I think he’s just not minding the store.
I have watched MG very closely on the Constitution. He has not only promised compliance, in writing, he has been in compliance in every way. I expect him to continue in compliance as long as he is here.
So how is ignoring a Senate resolution that had obvious institutional importance honoring the constitution? Do you mean he ignored it according to the letter of the law? In fact, UOM probably has a count of the number of Senate resolutions MG has not only rejected, but outright ignored. Old Man, you aren’t watching very closely. Maybe it is your disdain for faculty unions that has you defending thin air.
Did Gottfredson respond to the Senate resolution on shared governance?
No. And, following the process now says nothing about whether he would defend the Constitution against an Institutional Board should they decide it is inconvenient for them. He had the chance to do that and he didn’t. He is all hot air on issues related to faculty and shared governance.
Does MG’s public commitment to the Constitution count?
http://president.uoregon.edu/content/president-gottfredson’s-comments-shared-governance
Was that before or after Rudnick told the faculty that the administration didn’t give a damn about the Senate resolution, they would never “enshrine the constitution in the contract?”
“Does MG’s public commitment to the Constitution count?”
No, because he has proven to be full of empty rhetoric.
This is a bit harsh. He got rid of Bean, sort of, started an investigation of Espy’s office, sort of, signed on the Senate effort to get administrators reviewed, sort of, and got us out from under the state, for better or worse.
Too much double-speak about shared governance and transparency though. As for the union bargaining, he’s let it turn into a total disaster for everyone concerned, and not least for his own reputation.
RE: UO Matters: MG has been clear that he would never put the Constitution into a bargained contract. He has responded to the shared governance resolution on his web site, in which he pledges personal support for the Constitution and promises to lobby the new board to accept it as policy (as the OUS did). So, the resolution got a lot, but didn’t get everything. That ain’t bad for a resolution. At least you got a thoughtful and rather compliant response.
Re Anon’s “empty rhetoric.” I was appalled at Mike’s first address to the Senate, when he spent his time talking about the weather. But he’ll learn. In the mean time, put cotton in your ears and count the times he responds, on time, to Senate actions. THAT’s what matters. As for Rudnick, she seems to be channeling Randy Geller. In my experiences with him, he appears to get his marching orders from deep within, and they bear no resemblance to the academic scene. But, then, neither do unions.
Denial in action.
Last time they proposed 6 percent raises for NTTF at promotion and 8 percent for TTF. They reduced the salary proposal by 4 percent (at each promotion for a TTF). Time to counter with a increase in our demands if we are playing tit for tat.
No, I entered it wrong. Whoops, fixed now.
With this latest of an insult, do they want everyone who can leave to leave? I really to stay, but the admins seem to feel otherwise…
I’m still trying to figure out the beginning of this post. Are you saying that Blandy, a supervisor, publicly accused employees, by name, of violating a UO policy, because they publicly criticized the head librarian? Or was his accusation that the violation was revealing information that had been collected, under some assumption of confidence, from library employees? Were any names of these employees revealed, or knowable from the circumstances? Did Blandy actually list the names of the people that he thought had violated this policy? How specific was he about the accusations? Was it “X violated policy Y by saying Z” or just “Things were said at the last meeting that I believe should not have been said at a public meeting, in light of the desire to have a respectful workplace?” Did the other UO administrators present try to shut him up? DId they say anything indicating their agreement with whatever he said? This blog is a fun read, but it is impossible to tell what is your opinion or loose interpretation of the discussion, and what is a fact or quote.
“But that doesn’t mean he can get his numbers right?” Something getting under their skin, I see?
I don’t mind them their snark, I’ve gone there myself once or twice. But I’m surprised that Marla Rae, a well paid and experienced PR consultant, is making her clients sound they’re a bunch of HS kids, jealous because I got to be on the cool kids team.
The admin’s are offering TTF’s 1% for equity, over a 3 year deal. And they think *Harbaugh* is the problem?
1% for equity is so little that no department will be able to stomach the internal fallout from an unequal distribution of the peanuts.
The equity 1% comes in 2015, 5 years after the ML equity raises. 0.2% per year. Thank you MG, we are blessed.
Dog on dog-shit
yes the equity part of this is pathetic considering the May 2011 equity raises were on order of 6-9% for many.
and of course 2% merit is downright silly since us non-meritorious people will then get 1.5% and all the merit rich people will get 2.5%. Just do
ATB and call it good.