Senator Michael Dembrow and the university unions organized to end the old system, where the UO Board members nominated the children of their friends to be UO’s student trustees. Here’s the legislative history, check the testimony. Here’s Around the 0:
The University of Oregon Board of Trustees is seeking applicants to fill two new student trustee positions.
The positions are to be filled by one undergraduate and one graduate student, both of which will be nonvoting members of the board.
The new positions on the board stem from a change in state law that requires two undergraduate student trustee positions: one of which is a voting member while the other is a nonvoting position, with the two terms staggered. The law also adds a graduate student position.
The Associated Students of the University of Oregon is administering the process. The ASUO president will review applications, conduct interviews and nominate top finalists to the Oregon governor for review and selection. Applications must be submitted by Feb. 5.
To begin the application process and learn more, go to the Board of Trustees website. Questions can be directed to [email protected]
Incredibly grateful that Sen Dembrow used my suggested language when adding a grad student member to our public university’s governing boards, and for the immense work of the labor unions, university/faculty senates, and the Oregon Student Association to get this bill over the finish line.
.
I also notice that Around the O failed to mention that the law states unions are also eligible to submit names to the governor, on footing equal to that as the university/faculty senates and student governments. The hope is that everyone will coalesce around the same nominee. But UO’s failure to formally include the unions anywhere in their decision-making, or even give awknowlegement that they also have a legally outlined role to play in the nomination process when disseminating this information to our campus community (especially when grad student participation in ASUO is laughably low, particularly when juxtaposed against the huge participation in the GTFF), seems really disingenuous to me.
.
It’s this kind of ignoring/dismissive attitude towards other people and groups which also have important roles to play in university policymaking (eg, unions, university senate, etc.), coupled with low pay, which led to the scathing public testimony and multiple less-than-flattering private letters sent to the relevant legislative committees. It’s this attitude which I believe was ultimately responsible for developing and ultimately passing this bill into law. While I am slowly starting to see the contemptuous attitude improve a bit under the Scholz administration, I think many folks on campus would be willing to argue it’s still very much part of our top leadership’s culture, even if these administrators don’t necessarily see it themselves.
.
Going forward, I hope that folks in administration and communication do a better job of highlighting the role other campus groups have to play in these important nominations. It’s not just about sharing the particular mechanics of the process with interested students (although that’s important too). It’s also about the wider symbolism that shared governance and a commitment to pluralistic policy making with other campus groups (including, yes, even those darn unions) matters to Johnson Hall and the Board of Trustees.