Check it out at https://strengthenuo.org. Instead of the whining and obfuscation you’ll find on President Scholz’s website, the union has directly relevant data, for example:
Back of the envelope, if Scholz had the stones to cut his admin costs back to the 2015-21 average there’d be enough to give faculty a 10% raise this year even with no revenue growth. I can’t imagine why Jamie Moffitt didn’t want that info posted.
Also the union site has a much nicer design, almost like someone cared. So how much of your union dues did our Union Bosses spend on putting this together? I asked them, and of course put the same question about UO to Carol Keese, UO’s VP for Communications, both at 3:26PM today. 15 minutes later I got this from the union:
From: Kristy Hammond <[email protected]>Subject: Re: public records request, strengthinguo.org costsDate: January 8, 2025 at 3:41:08 PM PSTTo: Bill Harbaugh <[email protected]>Cc: Chris Sinclair <[email protected]>Professor Harbaugh,The website at https://strengthenuo.org was created by faculty members over the holiday break. The website hosting and domain were purchased for one year’s time and cost $142.05. Please let me know if there is any additional information that might be useful. I would be happy to send you the receipts:)Warmest regards,Kristy HammondOperations DirectorUnited Academics, AAUP-AFT Local 3209
Let’s see how long it takes VP Keese to tell us how much UO spent. An airline bottle of scotch for the best guess. (Sorry Kevin Reed, since you’re in charge of the public records office and get to determine how long they’ll stall, you can’t play.)
It’s not hard, nor expensive to build a website. Especially when the content is already there.
The United Academics Bargaining team has done an excellent job of laying out the arguments. Our Economics Team has done an excellent job at analyzing and presenting the data. The content was already there.
It does take time. Time that could have gone into research, or preparing for winter term classes. And not just my time. Lots of faculty time has gone into a contract campaign that could have been avoided by honest budgeting and preparing for the inevitable cost of inflation. But the administration only sees the dollars on their spreadsheets. They don’t worry about the cost of lost productivity due to our financial uncertainty, or the cost in faculty time necessary to build a credible strike threat (the labor is the same whether we have to strike or not). They just want their dollars to stay in the same columns on their spreadsheet.
The money to pay us fair raises is there. They have to spin financial doom and gloom to get more money from the legislature. This is why they budgeted for an 18% increase in out-of-state students for the year. When they inevitably missed this ridiculous target they got the deficit necessary to plead poverty. Responsible fiduciaries don’t count their out-of-state ducklings before they hatch.
But we get a veto on their budget, at least the part that involves our salaries. If it comes to it, I hope we exercise it.
People, including myself, have harped on the decline in the percentage of the all-important General budget that is comprised by the almost all-important Education (or Instruction) budget. But the figure devised by the Union, and displayed by UOMatters, is a doozy. It shows that there has been a sharpt decline in the budget share that goes to Education at UO. This is in the past decade or so.
Why is UO choosing to cut academics? What is the rationale? What is the impact going to be on the educational and research “mission” of the University? It’s embarrassing that Scholz doesn’t, to my knowledge, have answers to these questions.
An equally revealing chart that can be found in the Union document is the erosion of faculty salaries relative to comparators. From about 94% to 84% over about the same time span. It’s really hard to spin this well for UO. Is there an endgame envisioned in Johnson Hall? Will it reach 79%? 74%? Considerations like this would likely make faculty really take a look.
If you listen carefully to the arguments administration is presenting it is obvious that they are fighting to preserve their budget model instead of fighting to maintain the academic quality of the university. But the budget model doesn’t work. You can’t run a university for very long with a financial strategy consisting of high-than-inflation tuition increases and lower-than-inflation increases to compensation for those producing the ‘product’. This is a mathematical/economic fact, not up for debate.
The administration is not going to save the academics of the university. They’re not going to have a sudden change of heart. It’s going to be up to us, and it’s going to be by applying pain where it hurts them most: dollars from students and parents, dollars from donors, dollars from the legislature, and embarrassment in the media. We will have varying levels of success in these areas, but that’s the campaign. If we don’t put forth a credible (i.e. real) strike threat now, things are not going to get better.
Now is the best chance we have had since I’ve been at UO. Our current President is, um, ineffectual; a Gottfredson without a sports rape scandal. He has demonstrated 0 leadership with upset campus constituencies. See e.g. GTFF bargaining, the pro-Palestine encampment, the threatening of students for exercising free speech, the insulting bargaining strategy with UA and the UO Student Workers. He seems to think that his statutory power to make decisions translates into actual power. But that’s not how power works. The power he has to make (certain) decisions is dependent on trust and buy-in from those affected, and he has expended no effort to establish that trust or get the buy-in necessary to do what he wants. It doesn’t help that what he wants is real pay decreases for faculty and has given zero compelling reasons for that plan.
Our new Provost seems to say good things, but so far his flowery words have not translated into action. It is not clear that he has any influence over bargaining, either that or he’s in agreement with their strategy. Either way, my optimism is waning; I’m tired of administrators that know the right words to say but can’t or don’t make necessary changes to realize those words. I’d rather him keep his flowery words to himself until he is willing to expend some political capital and resources to make them happen.
So, no one is coming to save us. It’s going to be us saving ourselves, and saving the mission of the university as we go. There are going to be a lot of asks to faculty over the remainder of the contract campaign: some will seem small and be easy, other will be larger, but at the end of the day the totality of these actions is what is going to force the administration to reconsider their unsustainable budget model. When these asks come in, please take a few moments and figure out which you can do. Or better yet, join the Contract Action Team (email me), and help us build a winning strategy that begins to turn this place around and returns the focus of our overlords back to the mission of the university.
Well said Chris.
I agree with a good chunk of what you’ve said. For what it’s worth, my impression is that the provost actually has remarkably little influence on the bargaining process. It’s a “delegated task” to HR et al., and the provost’s job is to shut up and take whatever the finance and HR folks say is “reasonable” and run with the (sometimes very shitty hand) they’ve been dealt with a public smile. Otherwise it’s seen as turf infringement / micromanaging of their SVP/VP peers.
While budget is ultimately an admin and trustee decision, in the sprit of keeping important shared governance bodies informed, I think HR, the office of the SVPFA, and internal audit should give quarterly informational presentations to the Senate. Administrators should also be required to answer questions from senators about their decisions. The main Senate budget committee should also have its charge/mission explicitly written to state that this arm of the Senate should act as an advisory partner and also an accountability watchdog for UO’s budget writ-large. In turn, I think the Senate and individual senators ought to be cordial towards administrators when admins answer questions on the Senate floor and in the Senate budget committee meetings. (Truly outrageous behavior by admins can be more loudly protested by labor unions, legacy media, and here on UO Matters). In short, baby steps towards trust and accountability need to happen hand in hand. (Some) Admin need to not be so condescending and disingenuous, and (some) faculty could stand to be a bit more kind to administrators (particularly to those administrators further down the hierarchy).
That said, admin is certainly not innocent, and I think admin has much more to do than faculty in restoring trust in each other. This also extends to Pres Scholz himself, who can also improve. I expect accountability, clear pathways to improvement, and also timely changes when people (especially our leaders) fall short. I am curious, outside of bargaining/budget (obviously a big deal), what are actionable things that Pres Scholz can do (or stop doing) to gain your trust and the trust of other skeptics? Is there anything besides pay increases that could be implemented/changed beginning no later than the end of fall term 2025 that would go a long way towards building your trust in Scholz and admin?
I think you hit the nail on the head: the way out of this spiral is real shared governance.
One could imagine an alternate timeline where we had the sort of senate budget committee you propose. I would trust their analysis of the situation, and I would imagine it would influence the economic asks of the union were they to bring budgetary concerns to us.
For the non-monetary side of the trust deficit, the answer is the same: real shared governance. Mike Schill spent years trying to strip authority from everyone outside of Johnson Hall. Only those with large salaries that he could control got to make decisions. Scholz inherited this (along with all the unhappiness it has caused) and is running with it.
Academic units need some level of autonomy for running their affairs. Different departments have different needs, and are of various levels of competitiveness in attracting faculty and students. This cannot be managed centrally, nor with the level of homogeneity admin wants. The people closest to the situation, who are impacted most, need to feel listened to. This is the Respect plank of the bargaining platform.
The first instinct when dealing with things that percolate up from shared governance should be to find common ground and not instantly throw down the gauntlet of management prerogative to impose their will. The price of trust is for them to give up some control.
I also agree with your analysis re: delegation to their bargaining team. But if this is the case, then they need to perform a serious analysis of ELR (employee labor relations). Pushing three bargaining units to the brink of a strike in a year can’t be the desired outcome. Every protest, strike, action etc on campus increases the likelihood of another. In the language of Math 467, it’s a self-exciting process. I hope they are including the price of a more activist campus into their calculations when costing out the potential strike(s).
Thanks! This was helpful!
I’m curious, suppose Prez Scholz/Provost Long (& Chair Holwerda) aren’t jaded/scheming and they all genuinely do want to improve shared governance. Would a joint announcement between Prez Scholz and Senate President Schmitke outlining some sort of two year pilot program (extendable for longer) on greater consulting on university-wide budget matters between the Senate and admin do the trick?
As one concrete example (brainstorming here):
—–
*Existing Senate budget committee suspended during the duration of this pilot.*
=Summer Term=
Senate President appoints a “Senate budget advisory and oversight board” with ~10 members (7 faculty, 1 staff, 1 undergrad, 1 grad). Senate president also identifies the chair of the board (whose job it is to be the spokesperson for the board and who sets the board’s agenda in consultation with CFO Moffitt). Senate parliamentarian and senate executive assistant provide staff support to the advisory board, too.
Ideally, the Senate president should appoint people with subject matter expertise (finance, accounting, economics, business, etc.) but ultimately left up to their discretion. Bare minimum: everyone appointed should know the difference between cash vs accrual accounting and what the three key financial docs are (balance sheet, income statement/P&L, cash flow) before they join the committee. There needs to be a certain level of collective expertise on this board in order for this advisory/oversight board to be effective. I would also encourage appointments vs elections because half of the current Senate budget committee seats are apparently vacant because nobody wants to run.
Importantly, members of this budget advisory board + Senate president + Senate vice president all sign some sort of confidentiality agreement so that sensitive budget topics not ready for release to the wider community can be discussed candidly and in confidence. The goal is to help admin brainstorm as well as provide candid critique, and that requires a level of psychological safety and trust for admin to provide frank assessments and spitball some necessary but perhaps politically unpopular ideas.
=Fall Term=
CFO Moffitt and Fox (or designee) gives an orientation of the university budget and the to the 10 members over the course of ~10 weekly meetings. (This might even be similar material as that presented at TFAB.) Board members are also given “view/audit” access to internal financial systems.
Advisory board chair holds office hours on a periodic basis (or by appointment).
Moffitt and the advisory board chair give a joint quarterly update on finances (15 minutes of presentation, 15 minutes of follow-up questions) to the entire Senate. An email drafted by Moffitt’s office is sent to all faculty staff and GEs with a summary of the university’s overall financial situation, with a special focus on the education and general fund (i.e., the academic budget). In this email is also a paragraph (or three) from the chair of the advisory board. Included in this email is a link to a feedback form so that Moffitt and the budget advisory board can improve next quarter in better presenting the data to this broad, university-wide audience.
The chair of the advisory board writes a short (1-3 page max) public memo to the president and board of trustees on the state of the university’s finances and their recommendations, which will be included in the board’s quarterly packet next to the Senate President’s quarterly report. The chair of the advisory board also has a private meeting with the president and board chair (without the CFO present).
=Winter Term=
Moffitt and the advisory board review email feedback from the community, talk about the presentation to the Senate, and make a game plan for next quarter.
Moffitt provides quarterly overview of financial data.
Chief internal auditor Coulibaly, UO Foundation Weinhold give presentations on their portfolios. Financial people from the provost’s office and each of the colleges also give updates to the advisory board, as requested by members of the advisory board.
Key problems for the next fiscal year are outlined.
These things are done again this quarter, too: Office hours, a joint update to the Senate, a quarterly email update to all faculty+staff+GEs, a report to the president and board of trustees, and a private meeting with the president and advisory board chair and board of trustees chair.
=Spring Term=
Planning for the next fiscal year takes place. Ideas are bounced around. Guidance to Moffitt is made before summer break.
These things are done again this quarter, too: Office hours, a joint update to the Senate, a quarterly email update to all faculty+staff+GEs, a report to the president and board of trustees, and a private meeting with the president and advisory board chair and board of trustees chair.
—–
IDK, maybe this is all overkill, or maybe it doesn’t go far enough. But would this be the kind of thing that you’d like to see?
Not cdsinclair but I am intrigued by this idea. My time on the SBC was pretty demoralizing as it felt like a rubberstamp for admin decision-making without any two-way input/discussion. This sort of structure sounds like it could be more productive and at least give the people involved a sense that they were spending their service time productively for the institution.
The political dynamics are tricky. The current Admin/Senate leadership isn’t responsible for the existence of UA, but UA exists and is in the middle of contract negotiations and that has to be a consideration. I don’t know how something like this could be successful in the present moment without including UA in some capacity (imagine the rhetoric otherwise). Is there enough mutual trust between Admin/Senate/UA leadership for something like this? Maybe something like this is effective once the contract is settled (or as part of a negotiated agreement) and helps lower the temperature for the next round of negotiations.
FWIW, I (at least) don’t think of Scholz/Long/Holwerda as necessarily completely jaded. I don’t really know what to think about them. But I don’t think they are successfully connecting with faculty empathically. The job has gotten worse, we’re getting paid less for doing it, and the Admin’s public smiles seem a bit tone-deaf to me and my colleagues. To borrow your language, JHO, if we’re being dealt shitty hands we should be talking about that with empathy and spending visible effort to improve the hand we get dealt next round.
Your proposal would be a good start. I think the proof would be in the pudding. There are some details I would push for: open meetings with the ability of going into executive session, release time or stipends for the committee so they could do the job, etc etc. But your outline seems a reasonable place to start building trust around budgets. I trust Senate President Schmitke, and would be happy to help craft Senate legislation, if that is useful.
As for trust around local shared governance, the Provost could revisit the governance documents departments recently sent up the chain of command, for which he systematically refused any of the changes suggested by faculty in favor of templates. This resulted in the change of long-standing policies and procedures for many departments in favor of a formula which does not reflect local needs or workloads. Admin pulled a ton of shenanigans around this policy push (happy to elaborate if anyone wants to lose more trust in admin), and many departments are still pushing back with a bitter taste in their mouth. The solution doesn’t even have to be to approve all of the suggested changes—to be sure some are expensive—but it must involve open conversation, listening openly to suggestions and at the very least, implementing half-measures or pilots to move toward those goals. Policy changes suggested by faculty that do not have a monetary impact outside of the department should be approved pretty much automatically.
There are also some administrators that need to go. High level administrators who do not believe there is a morale problem are detrimental to building trust and need to be shown the door.