Update #4: New UO proposal on consulting imposes unacceptable new rules

Negotiations between the union and the administration resume at 1PM Tuesday, Room 122 or 101 in the library. If you care about this stuff, I suggest you show up.

9/9/2013 update #2: The take from the administration’s bargaining update pages?

Article 52: Outside Activities
We presented the Union with a counterproposal on Outside Activities (consulting). The parties did not engage in any substantive discussion about it.

My notes:

Gottfredson is not content with just paying us wages at the bottom of the AAU. His new consulting policy proposal will require that *any* consulting activity, even below 1 day in 7, must first be approved by his Provost or designee.

9.5 minutes to go. Rudnick is wasted. Cecil just keeps on going. “Let’s go back to the consulting article.”

Olson: Will this apply to non-BU faculty?

Rudnick: “My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is *all* policies will apply to all employees.”

Also see the administration’s “fact-check” page, which notes that their proposed policy resembles that at UW. I’d link to them, but they don’t link to me, so try google.

What do the transcripts taken down by the university’s stenographer say? President Gottfredson will not release these transcripts, claiming attorney-client privilege. I have a public records petition in to Lane County DA Alex Gardner, arguing that transcripts of a public meeting taken by a university employed non-attorney are not privileged, and that even they are UO has waived that privilege by posting information from those transcripts on the web and circulating them to their laborrelations email list.

His decision is due Thursday. If it goes against me, I will ask the Senate to ask Gottfredson to waive UO’s privilege and release all UO’s transcripts of the public bargaining sessions.

9/9/2013 update: Gottfredson and Geller’s process for this consulting proposal appears to violate the UO Constitution, or at least common practices of collegiality. The working group report from 2010 is at the bottom of this post. Some highlights:

“…required reporting from all faculty members is neither appropriate nor necessary.”
“…activities performed on personal time are exempt from regulation unless they pose potential conflicts of interest or conflict with the proper discharge of University responsibilities. (See: UO PP 3.095 and IMD 4.015).”

9/8/2013 update: See bottom of the post for the UC policy – a striking comparison with what Gottfredson is proposing.

9/7/2013: I will try and avoid hyperbole here, but this is rather amazing.

At the bargaining session on Friday the UO administration presented a new contract article: Article 52, Outside Activities. At this point in the negotiations, which are nearing conclusion, it is unusual to drop a bombshell. This is one.

This proposal requires faculty wanting to engage in outside consulting work to first obtain permission from the university. If you are a law professor or PI, you may be thinking that this proposal will not apply to you, because you are not in the union. However it would be difficult for the university to have 2 sets of rules for this sort of thing, and during the discussion the university’s negotiator, Sharon Rudnick volunteered that:

“My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is that *all* policies will apply to all employees.”

This proposal defines consulting broadly, and it spells out many criteria that must be followed before permission will be granted.

Some of these criteria are quite specific, and contrary to common practice. For example, when combined with the administration’s Intellectual Property proposal, it would seem that proposals to do consulting work will only be approved if the agreement makes clear that the work product of your consulting may belong to UO – see 3.h. (This refers to UO’s Intellectual Property proposal. You can download this from UO’s bargaining website, here. It raises a host of problems on its own.) When it comes to Intellectual Property, may also want to speak to a law firm similar to Sidley Austin that specializes in such cases.

Other criteria for approval are unbelievably broad, such as 3.k:

“The consulting is not contrary to the University’s best interests”

Gosh, who gets to decide that one?

These new rules, if implemented, will make it close to impossible for faculty in music, law, business, economics, education, psychology, physics, nano-science, chemistry, human physiology, etc. to engage in most consulting work. If you are in this category, I encourage you to contact your department head and/or dean and explain the problems with this administration proposal, and ask them to contact President Gottfredson and his lead negotiator, UO General Counsel Randy Geller, at [email protected], to make those concerns known. Here is the text of the proposal:


Section 1. As used in this Article, “consulting” means any professional activity for which a bargaining unit faculty member is paid that is external to the University or beyond the assigned duties for which the bargaining unit member is appointed and paid by the University.
Section 2. Bargaining unit faculty members owe their primary professional responsibility to the University. Full-time employment requires a work effort of at least 40 hours in a full work-week. Part-time employment requires a proportional effort. No bargaining unit faculty member is to receive compensation from a source other than the University for work performed as a part of his or her university employment. Activities unrelated to a bargaining unit faculty member’s University responsibilities and areas of professional competence do not require prior approval, but such activities may be engaged in only on the bargaining unit faculty member’s own time and must be in compliance with applicable law. Such activities by definition do not meet the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.
Section 3. Consulting activity must have the prior written approval of the Provost or designee prior to initiation of the consulting activity. Approval of consulting activity may only be granted if the proposed activity satisfies the following criteria:
a. It is within the scope of the bargaining unit member’s professional competence.

b. The consulting is bona fide and work under the engagement is actually performed.

c. It will not impair, in quality or quantity, the performance of the bargaining unit faculty member’s assigned duties, including regularly scheduled teaching or work pursuant to the terms and conditions of any grant and contract.

d. In the case of a bargaining unit member with a full-time appointment, consulting activity does not exceed 39 days in an academic year or 48 days in a fiscal year (including travel). This limitation does not apply to activities in which the bargaining unit faculty member engages during periods of vacation leave or on legal holidays, or during the summer for nine month appointments, or where actual practice in a bargaining unit member’s professional field is required by his or her job description and any such practice has the approvals required in this Article.
e. It does not involve the use of more than de minimis University resources, except as provided in a current agreement signed by the Provost or designee.
f. Each client is informed by the bargaining unit faculty member that he or she is acting as a private person and that the University is not a party to the contract, nor liable, nor responsible for the performance of the contract.
g. The consulting is not under a grant or contract to which the University is a party;

h. Each client is informed that the bargaining unit faculty member’s obligations to the University, including those related to intellectual property, are primary, unless otherwise approved in writing by the University.
i. The consulting will not result in the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information or the unapproved transfer of University intellectual property.
j. The consulting is consistent with University commitments under sponsored research

k. The consulting is not contrary to the University’s best interests.

l. The consulting complies with applicable law, including ORS Chapter 244, as interpreted by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, and approval has been granted as provided in ORS 351.067.
Section 4.

a. Declaration. A bargaining unit faculty member who performs any consulting subject to the approval required in this Agreement must complete the Declaration of Outside Employment or Consulting for Compensation form on an annual basis. An updated form must be submitted throughout the year if a bargaining unit faculty member proposes to engage in outside employment or consulting.
b. Approval. Approval for consulting by a bargaining unit faculty member may be granted only when the proposed activity satisfies the criteria set forth in this Article. In his or her request for approval, a bargaining unit faculty member must provide the following information to the Provost or designee: (1) an estimate of the time that will be required; (2) the subject and scope of the activity; and (3) the extent to which University facilities will be used.
c. Use of University Resources. If University resources are to be used (other than assigned office or studio space or the library and subject to priority for their use in University activities), the bargaining unit faculty member must enter into a written agreement with the University (acting through the Provost or designee) prior to using any such resources. Such an agreement must: (1) stipulate the kind and extent of equipment usage, the direct costs to be incurred, and liability for personal injury or damage to University property; (2) include provisions for appropriate advance payment to the University; (3) and indicate that the required administrative approvals for the consulting has been obtained.
d. Other Work. Any work by a bargaining unit faculty member for the University that is in addition to the bargaining unit faculty member’s primary University employment, whether or not it is termed consulting, must be approved by the Provost or designee, and compensation for any such work is taxable as income, unless the Vice President for Finance and Administration or designee has approved an independent contractor relationship.
Section 5.
The following outside activities do not require approval if they are uncompensated except for reasonable expenses and nominal honoraria, and are consistent with the bargaining unit faculty member’s obligations to the University:
a. Participation in scholarly, professional, and philanthropic activities, such as service on advisory bodies or public commissions related to the bargaining unit member’s field of professional competence;
b. Presenting lectures or leading seminars or workshops in the bargaining unit member’s area of professional competence at other universities, colleges or not-for-profit institutions;

c. Visiting the laboratories of colleagues at other universities, colleges, or not-for-profit institutions.

Update from 9/8/2013:

A reader sends this link to the University of California policy on outside work and Intellectual Property. UC encourages faculty to do consulting for 1 day in 7. No prior approval is required:

The University of California encourages faculty to participate in outside professional activities that contribute to their profession and to the broader community and contribute to the University’s public service mission. Engagement with the outside community is also an important component of the academic enterprise and one way in which faculty and other researchers maintain contact with research directions and priorities that exist in the private sector. This knowledge also guides faculty in preparing students for careers in the private sector.

When it comes to IP, UC wants to know about their faculty’s patentable inventions so they can negotiate a split of the royalties:

The University must be able to meet its obligations assumed under legal contractual obligations with regard to intellectual property rights. Such rights may be generated by faculty and other researchers as a result of sponsored research agreements, material transfer agreements, and other research support agreements entered into on behalf of those faculty and research staff. Therefore, all inventions made by a University employee must be disclosed to the University, including inventions made on weekends, on leave, at home “in the garage,” or during paid or unpaid consulting work. Disclosure is a legal obligation of employment at the University.

Employees must assign inventions when certain conditions exist

The process of determining the University’s rights in any potentially patentable invention made by a University employee is initiated with the disclosure of an invention, typically on a Record of Invention form. The University may assert its right to an invention based on three primary criteria:

1) the use of University funds or facilities in conceiving and/or developing the invention;

2) potential obligations to third parties; and

3) intellectual property rights and obligations that arise from the faculty/researcher’s scope of University employment.

The determination regarding the use of University funds or facilities and third party obligations is typically managed by the campus/Laboratory authorized licensing, contracts and grants, or comparable administrative office. For University faculty and researchers, the question of an employee’s scope of employment is initially an academic issue best addressed by the appropriate University academic manager – most often the department chair or dean – with guidance from the Office of General Counsel as necessary.

UC does not purport to claim they own your class notes and writings or whatever is on your computer, or everything you do as a scholar, by default. But that is exactly what Gottfredson is letting Geller try to do in UO’s Article 51:

Section 10. Reservation of Rights. The University is hereby granted the right to an irrevocable, non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty-free license for the use of inventions, technological improvements, works of authorship, and other Intellectual Property not owned by the University but related to a bargaining unit faculty member’s fields of professional competence, unless a written document assigning that right has been executed by an authorized University official.

But even that is not enough for UO. In article 49, they assert they own everything you store on a UO computer or network.

9/9/2013 update: Gottfredson and Geller’s process for this consulting proposal appears to violate the UO Constitution, or at least common practice of collegiality:

See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/COCReportFINAL3Feb10.pdf (Joint Provost- and Senate-appointed Working Group)
Conflict of Commitment Working Group
John Bonine, School of Law
Ron Bramhall, Lundquist College of Business
Mike Bullis, College of Education
Moira Kiltie, Office of Vice-President for Research and Graduate Studies
Robert Z. Melnick, Department of Landscape Architecture (chair)
Larry Singell, College of Arts and Sciences
Christine Theodoropoulos, Department of Architecture
Lisa Wolverton, Department of History
“…the working group met a number of times in spring and fall terms 2009, examined existing policies relevant to the issue (UO Policy Statement 3.095 and OUS Internal Management Directive [IMD] 4.015), consulted with the General Counsel, and reviewed examples of conflict of commitment (COC) policies from other academic institutions across the country.”
Recommended policies and comments
“…required reporting from all faculty members is neither appropriate nor necessary.”
“…activities performed on personal time are exempt from regulation unless they pose potential conflicts of interest or conflict with the proper discharge of University responsibilities. (See: UO PP 3.095 and IMD 4.015).”
“…conflicts of commitment are best resolved at the most local level and encourage individual units to develop a process and interpretations to implement this policy.”
“…. It should be left to individual units to define “one day per week apart from personal time” more specifically, as necessary or appropriate, within the accepted norms of the various fields and disciplines. This recommendation is consistent with our interpretation of the rule after consultation with General Counsel.”
(No policy subsequently proposed by the Office of Academic Affairs in consultation with the Senate to carry out the recommendations. So instead, General Counsel now ignores the shared governance process and tries to ram in a Big Brother/”we own you” policy through collective bargaining.

Surely Geller did not bother to tell Gottfredson of this history and how he was going behind the back of the Senate’s and Office of Academic Affairs’ previous work on this.
Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Update #4: New UO proposal on consulting imposes unacceptable new rules

  1. Anonymous says:

    Yes, this is an extreme overreach and contrary to OAR stipulations and a 2009 Senate approval of a COC working group recommendation.

    It also completely ignores, or even contradicts the idea that it is generally good for the University for its faculty to engage in consulting for many reasons.

    Of course, they have demonstrated over and over they do not understand the proper role of a university in society and its faculty.

    This has Geller’s fingerprints all over it.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’m shocked. They are making it more and more difficult to stay.

  3. Anonymous says:

    How much of this do you suppose is generated by new board sentiments?

  4. Anonymous says:

    What are the regulations at our comparator AAU schools?

  5. Anonymous says:

    The union shouldn’t fight this. Better to let MG sign his name to it, then run him off.

    • Anonymous says:

      No. Let’s have the union fight it, then if you want to run him off.

    • Anonymous says:

      Income loss, prestige loss, and now we have profs that lack industry connections? I don’t see an up-side to letting this be changed.

  6. thedude says:

    Do you think part of this is to just piss people off. Or to distract us from the financial negotiations, and instead we focus our efforts on fighting this battle.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Current policy:


    Report by Joint Academic Affairs/Senate Working Group:


    Hmmm…reasonable. Why change it?

    • Anonymous says:

      Consulting dog

      I have had a lot of experience with this

      The current rule is both sensible and practical – there is no reason for change

  8. Anonymous says:

    This is two-cuss-word-breaking RIDICULOUS. They withhold cost of living and merit raises for the better part of a DECADE and then go on to cut off outside streams of income? Exactly how tone-deaf can one set of administrators be?


  9. Anonymous says:

    Dear Provost:

    I will appreciate receiving written approval for the following work, which will be done in addition to my normal teaching and research:

    Topic: Informing academics through blogging on the Internet of the atmosphere for work at the University of Oregon and the speed with which approval for outside work is provided by the Provost’s Office.

    Amount of time: Varies — from one hour to two days per week, but never from 8 am to 5 pm on M-F.

    Subject and scope of activity: See Topic title, above. The content of the information I will provide on atmosphere and speed of approval will be dependent upon how you react to this approval request.

    Use of university facilities: Use of university-provided laptop and email account.

    I look forward to your written consent.


    • UO Matters says:

      Nice. Should I add my remuneration from google ads and t-shirt sales?

      Do you think Coltrane would prefer I measure that in dollars, or fifths?

    • Anonymous says:

      Or fractions of goats.

    • Old Man says:

      The policy stuff that the Administration Bargaining Team is throwing at the Union appears to be all Randy’s. It looks as though MG himself would rather not negotiate with the Union on policies, which can be better negotiated within the framework of the Constitution. Perhaps everyone’s time and money would be better spent if the bargaining teams stuck to salaries and economic benefits.

    • UO Matters says:

      You think Gottfredson isn’t bothering to read and approve Randy’s proposals? Come on.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah, how’s that worked out to negotiate policies in the framework of the Constitution?

      Policies that the President on down can ignore (as they have done for years).

      This consulting issue is a prime example of shared governance not working. The Senate work group in 2008 spent months developing a sensible policy that was subsequently shelved and ignored.

      Has MG really proven to be any different in this respect? Besides a bunch of empty rhetoric?

      At least with policies in a CBA they can be grieved and arbitrated if they don’t do what they say they will.

    • UO Matters says:

      The Senate passed motions calling for UO policies on performance evaluations and faculty input into hiring of administrators last November. Gottfredson agreed. Still no policies, not even any meetings on them since February or so.

    • Old Man says:

      Much (most? all?) of what might look like Administrative inaction is ascribable to the misguided “leadership” of a Senate President who appears to have valued “Comity” over Constitutional process. We can look forward to better things. Stay tuned.

    • Anonymous says:

      Given the history around here, that is a very optimistic interpretation. I still fail to see why you have so much confidence in MG when he has demonstrated so little respect for faculty on so many ways.

    • Anonymous says:

      My sad take on MG is “asked and answered”. Maybe you can be a good President for the university as a whole without having any respect for your faculty, but I don’t see how.

    • Old Man says:

      “Asked and answered” was not a gracious response, but, as one guy who has been on the receiving end, I am free to say that I will judge MG by what he does, not be his occasional shortage of patience. MG has, to my knowledge, responded to every Senate action, as he is called upon to do by the Constitution. These responses have generally been in support of the Senate action. It is sadly true that the previous Senate President simply did not follow through on some actions taken by the Senate. Whether that was out of a bizarre sense of “Comity”, as suggested above, we may never know. In any case, he apparently thought it was his responsibly to decide which Senate actions should be implemented. One has to think that he was trying to protect MG. However, because so many people have blamed the wrong President for the apparent failures of shared governance, his actions have tarnished MG’s image.
      re: “Given the history around here,…” I suggest you not judge MG by the actions of previous office holders.
      re: whether or not MG reads Randy’s proposals to the Union. I don’t know. However, I don’t know why ANYONE thought he could negotiate with the Union over matters that must, according to the Constitution, be negotiated with the Senate.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Among many other extra-curricular activities this is intended to frustrate . . . 1) law professors who represent environmental (or other anti-university board interests) plaintiffs in litigation, and, 2) expert witnesses engaged in same.

    Regardless of whether this provision is incorporated into the union contract, you can count on seeing it again when your new board takes over.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Mr Provost,
    My home office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $219.65. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the me for that amount, my home office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure. Of course, they will be heavily redacted as I have no intention of providing useful information to you. Furthermore, I plan to submit invoices to you for the portion of my home office and utilities I employ for the purpose of completing university business.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Dear Provost:

    I have been to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences. While I am honored by this distinction, which is achieved by few professors in the United States, I have been informed that I might be asked, as a member, to serve as an expert on various committees and projects.

    Would you please approve my membership before I accept the invitation?

    Would you like me to seek approval in addition for each request by the NAS to serve on a committee? If so, will you require a detailed report on expected subject matter of the committee’s work? Are there any particular topics that you would prefer I avoid?

    Thank you,

    Dr. ——

  13. Anonymous says:

    Dear Provost:

    I note that our new policy states that “Activities unrelated to . . . areas of professional competence do not require prior approval.”

    Will you be defining my areas of professional competence? Do you plan on updating my areas on a regular basis?

    Professor Incompetent

  14. Anonymous says:

    Dear Provost,

    I’ve been asked to have lunch with an old friend, looking for someone with my expertise to bounce a few things off of. He’s buying. Will you let me help the guy out? Pretty please?

    Embarrassed Full professor

  15. Anonymous says:

    Dear Provost Coltrane:

    I recently received a potentially lucrative consulting offer from a former Nigerian government employee, offering to transfer $1 million dollars ($1,000,000) into my bank account in exchange for substantially less than 1 day in 7 of consulting work.

    Because this proposal was sent to my uoregon.edu email address, I assume that this is related to my area of professional expertise, and that the University of Oregon may have rights to part or all of these funds, which are being held in escrow for me in a Cayman Islands account.

    In light of UO’s new consulting and IP policies, I will forward this offer, and any related proposals I may receive, to you and to UO’s General Counsel for approval.

    It would be helpful if you could forward the university’s bank account numbers, so that this transfer can be expedited before my contact’s dear and gravely ill Aunt passes away.

    Sincerely Yours,

    A soon to be wealthy UO professor, in everlasting gratitude for his Provost’s vigilance over UO’s policies, and his concern for his faculty.

  16. Oryx says:

    On consulting and Berkeley: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/02/01/professors-innovations-benefit-society-economy/

    Has the administration been sleeping for the last two decades, when universities realized that faculty consulting with outsiders is a *good* thing for everyone involved?

    And why do they think they’re entitled to decide whether work done *outside* one’s UO tasks, agreed upon between the faculty and someone else, satisfies:

    a. It is within the scope of the bargaining unit member’s professional competence.
    b. The consulting is bona fide and work under the engagement is actually performed.

    Is this even legal? Even if the administration wants to treat workers as cogs, can cogs’ activities be restricted like this? If someone works for Walmart stacking boxes, can Walmart dictate that the employee can’t take a second job elsewhere stacking boxes, because all their box-stacking actions fall under the domain of Walmart?

    I don’t do any consulting, so I don’t have any personal stake in this. I just find it concerning.

  17. Anonymous says:

    This attempt at restricting outside activities is counter to what is expected of NTTF folks in the B School for their accreditation process through the AACSB. NTTF have to maintain professional qualifications and show that they are actively working outside of their B school responsibilities to do so. Part of the qualifications include (from the B School’s Policy):

    Intellectual Contributions:
    • Consulting on a discipline-related topic for internal (UO) or external clients
    • Conducting workshops on a discipline-related topic for internal or external clients

    Wording used by other AACSB accredited B schools shows that external consulting is a REQUIREMENT for maintaining the professional qualification designation and for continued employment. Some universities even require substantial, multi-year, consulting relationships

    As an NTTF within the B School, I do this not only for the requirement, but also for the opportunity to try new approaches that I usually bring back into the classroom to the benefit of the students. The pay isn’t bad either. As a professional, I know not to let my outside activities interfere with my responsibilities to the B school. The university administration should not have the ability to restrict these activities and reduce our consulting–and the financial benefit–which is way more than the 10.5 percent raise they are offering.

    • Anonymous says:

      At what point does Randy Geller and team declare “Oops.”

    • UO Matters says:

      Might take a while. Randy never admitted he was wrong to threaten Senate Pres Kyr for challenging the last policy change he imposed on UO:

      On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Randy Geller wrote:

      Dear Rob and Brian:

      I received your email of July 24, 2012, requesting a delay in the public hearing scheduled for August 23rd, 2012. The hearing will be rescheduled for September 13, 2012. Written comments will be accepted until noon on September 14, 2012. We will similarly postpone the date the rule will be filed with the Secretary of State and become final. The rule will be filed on September 21, 2012.

      Your allegations about the University’s rulemaking processes are offensive and false , as are the comments made publicly by members of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. I ask that you apologize in writing to President Berdahl, Rob Mullens, and me. I also ask that you censure the members of the IAC who have published offensive and defamatory comments.

      Randolph Geller
      General Counsel
      University of Oregon

    • Anonymous says:

      Whatever happened to the motion of non-confidence in Geller? Any action expected on that front?

      Will someone from the senate please chime in?

    • UO Matters says:

      Notice has been given. It’s a big step though, and I will not go forward without consultation, ample documentation, a chance for Mr. Geller to make his own case to the Senate, and a reasonable expectation that the process will actually result in a Senate vote of no-confidence. All that said, I expect to bring this motion forward this fall.

  18. Anonymous says:

    There seems to be a presumption in this policy of full time employment at UO. Does this mean adjuncts would need permission to pick up a class at LCC or that the infamous adjunct yoga instructors have to be authorized to teach a class at a local studio? That people with 0.5 appointments cannot get another part time job in their field without university permission? And what about the fact that many of us are not on contract in the summer?

  19. thedude says:

    Could it be that retired professors with established consulting or law firms might be setting up barriers to entry to prevent competition from entering the market?

  20. Anonymous says:

    While I do not engage in private tutoring in Eugene, I have in the past. That was how I was able to pay my way to the annual professional conference (TESOL) in my field, English as a Second Language. As an AEI instructor, would the university require that I request approval for any tutoring or editing gig for which I might be asked to do?

  21. Anas clypeata says:

    Rudnick, quoted by UO Matters: “My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is that *all* policies will apply to all employees.”

    SEIU-represented classified staff to Rudnick: “Um, no.”

    GTFF-represented graduate teaching fellows to Rudnick: “Um, no.”

    Officers of Administration who worked long and hard with the UO Senate and the University Administration to craft a sensible, thoughtful Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment policy, to Rudnick: “Um, no.”

    UO Senate, which must be consulted before new policies are promulgated, to Rudnick: “Um, no.”

    Let’s see, that’s four “Um, no”s so far. What say you, represented faculty? Did John Bonine and many other hard-working faculty waste their time and effort fixing the administration’s dead-on-arrival COI and COC policies? What say you?

    • Anonymous says:

      Gottfredson pisses all over your policies. He doesn’t plan to break the law, but you should expect everything. You know… just like from Syria.

  22. Anonymous says:

    This’ll apply to outside gigs for football coaches too, right?