What UO tells its accreditors about faculty consultation on budgeting

11/26/2013 repost.

3/25/2013: UO’s academic accreditation comes through the NWCCU, which in turn is supervised by the US DOE. UO filed it’s latest report on 3/1/2013, compiled by Dave Hubin. Full of bold talk and more than a few half-truths. Read it all here. The cover page refers to our goal to be in the top half of the AAU:

Here are a few of the accreditation standards, with UO’s responses:

2.B.4 Consistent with its mission, core themes, programs, services, and characteristics, 
the institution employs appropriately qualified faculty sufficient in number to achieve its 
educational objectives, establish and oversee academic policies, and assure the integrity 
and continuity of its academic programs, wherever offered and however delivered. …

… The UO Academic Plan specifically addresses faculty size and quality in the context of the university’s mission, which seeks academic excellence on a human scale while adhering to rigorous standards that establish the university’s ongoing status as the only AAU institution in the state of Oregon.
The University Senate, comprised of elected faculty (both tenure-related and non-tenurerelated), plays a key role in policy review and development.

2.F.3 The institution clearly defines and follows its policies, guidelines, and processes 
for financial planning and budget development that include appropriate opportunities 
for participation by its constituencies.

The UO engages several cross-functional teams to assist with budget preparation and
operational assessment. These teams include:
• Budget Advisory Group – comprised of students, faculty and staff; advises on
general fund allocations
• Tuition and Fee Boards – comprised of students, faculty, and staff; advises on
tuition and fees, and evaluates performance and projections.
• Internal Bank Advisory Committee – comprised of faculty and staff; analyze and
advise on debt-funded projects.
• Senate Budget Committee – comprised of members of the elected University
Senate; review and make recommendations on budgetary policy and long-term
financial strategies.

I’d say the reality is a little different. The SBC website is here – not a lot of consultation going on, much less reporting. The academic plan was drafted by Bean in 2009 and then forgotten about  (the 2011 date is when they located a copy of it – not when it was revised.)

The only link I can find to the “Budget Advisory Group” on the UO pages is to the accreditation report itself. How’s that for “appropriate opportunities for participation”?

And as for input into budget development, UO VPFA Jamie Moffitt won’t even show the faculty UO’s budget projections:

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to What UO tells its accreditors about faculty consultation on budgeting

  1. Anonymous says:

    Publicly accusing the UO of lying to/misleading the federal government is a really smart move; what a great way to prop up the institution. This will DEFINITELY help the Union’s bargaining efforts.

  2. UO Matters says:

    You’re right, better to hide this. Sorry.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hide *what*? There is nothing here. This is air, just like the four year-old HLRG story you posted a couple days ago. It’s an obvious attempt to smear (a lame one at that), and it doesn’t help anyone.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Oh yea… it’s always better for the UO to hide and keep heads down.

    Is it not yet time for the real UO community (i.e., not the admins) to take their heads out of their asses and take back the institution? If not now, when might that be?

    • Anonymous says:

      ZOMG, UO says good things about itself in EXTERNAL REPORT! STOP TEH PRESSES!!!!!!

  4. Anonymous says:


    This may be a small thing but it shows to me the nature of these reports and/or fact checking.

    In the data table on page 4 where the total number of faculty are listed as Full,
    Associate, Assistant the combined number is 818. Yet IR lists 715 total TTF as of
    Fall 2012 which by the way is 10% higher than its was in 2008. So that’s our
    recent rate of hire

  5. Anonymous says:

    NEW TOPIC (I can’t seem to find where to post a new comment): It seems the EMU renovation will cost $95 million, and take 2.5 years. The new building will be 214,000 square feet. That’s almost $444 / square foot – isn’t that more expensive than the Jock Box? Does anyone know if the architects considered building the new EMU to the south on the parking lot and open space, then tearing down the present EMU and replacing it with the open space that was lost? Its what school districts do when then build new schools. Seems like a faster and cheaper option. Thoughts?

    • Anonymous says:

      interesting question, haven’t seen this raised before — if accurate pretty shocking raw numbers. But the horse is already out of the barn.

    • Peter Keyes says:

      The Jaqua Center actually cost over $1000 per square foot. And I’m afraid that your ideas on how to rebuild the EMU are pretty off base too. School districts (well, 4J) may do this, because they can’t lose any capacity for one year, and then they end up with a building in the wrong place (cf. Bertha Holt). It’s a bad idea; if it were a good idea, someone who did this for a living would have thought of it. Sorry.

    • Anonymous says:

      That would make way to much sense….

      However the football palace cost well north of $100M, the $65M original price tag was before the upgrades/change orders.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This letter is good. It should be our goal to be in the top half of AAU institutions. I am glad to see the president stating it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Yes, Dave Hubin is a liar.