Last updated on 03/28/2014
Summary:
This was the board’s first substantive meeting. We’ve got a good, fully engaged board. Yesterday they listened to the faculty about Geller and Gottfredson’s attempt to grab power from the faculty, and today they voted unanimously to send that policy back to the Senate for review. They also had a frank discussion about the need to do an evaluation of President Gottfredson. The OUS Board did this in secret last year, with no faculty input to speak of. I have the feeling our board is going to want to conduct a much more open process. They also agreed that future meetings would be held when UO was in session. All in all I’m very optimistic.
3/28/2014 8:30 AM Live-blog: Come on down, they’ve got free coffee.
The kerfuffle yesterday reminds me of what happened in 2012, when Randy Geller tried to slide a new random drug testing policy for athletes through over the summer. The faculty fought back, and Geller sent out this snarky email to the Senate President and the IAC Chair:
Dear Rob [Senate President Kyr] and Brian [IAC Chair McWhorter]:
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
Nothing came of his threats, of course.
Now on to today’s live-blog:
President Gottfredson reads a housekeeping motion on fees and tuition, passes.
Board returns to policy on board authorities. No Dotters-Katz? Susan Gary proposes adopting policy with automatic sunset. Wants the minutes to reflect that the Senate will convene an ad hoc committee of the Senate, including Bonine, to collect comments and report by April 30. The Senate will take the comments and make proposals to fix Geller’s policy. She reads the motion.
[Strange, I don’t see anything like this policy on the Oregon State Board website. How is it that UO urgently needs it and OSU doesn’t?]
Geller looks sad. Motion passes unanimously. Big win for shared governance!
Gottfredson proposes a “strategic retreat” for the board. I believe this is a loophole under the public meetings law, that will allow them to meet in secret. [Update: No, the DOJ’s public meetings law has already ruled on this – retreats are open, public meetings.]
Allyn Ford raises the question of when the UO Board will take responsibility for conducting an evaluation of President Gottfredson. [Last year OUS did a secret evaluation. Gottfredson didn’t ask the faculty to provide feedback or even tell them he was being reviewed].
Lillis discusses setting goals for the performance review. Important that board gives Gottfredson information on what metrics he will be reviewed. Lillis notes that it’s important to set the schedule of board meetings for times when UO is actually in session – not like this meeting!
Willcox asks if the board can get summary of meetings, minutes, agendas out sooner. Geller says Tim Clevenger is working on a summary for this session.
9:27, board adjourns.
Yesterday 3/27/2014: UO Board meeting live-blog. Short version:
Encouraging to see Chuck Lillis in charge of the meeting. Inspires a certain amount of confidence.
Gottfredson and Geller try a power grab. The new Board policy on rights and responsibilities was prepared by Geller and due to be ratified by the board today. I found it on the Trustee’s website, here: http://trustees.uoregon.edu/sites/trustees3.wc-sites.uoregon.edu/files/field/image/March%202014%20Agenda%20032114%20-%20final%20-%20post.pdf
Apparently the board had no plans to show this document to the UO Senate before ratifying it. No one on the faculty even knew of it until I started emailing it to people on Tuesday night. (Except the sole faculty member on the board, Susan Gary, who helped draft it, but did not tell anyone about it)
The proposed policy takes significant amounts of power away from the faculty.
John Bonine prepared a rushed but comprehensive dissection last night, got up at 6:30, revised it, and presented it to the board during their public comment period. See below for his full text. But at first it seemed that the board was going to ram it through today anyway, pretty much as is.
There was lots of pushback from several board members. Very encouraging to see this. Student member Sam Dotters-Katz made a strong case that a new board didn’t want to get off to a bad start with something this important.
In the end the board decided to delay at least until tomorrow’s meeting, and potentially for 10 additional days, to seek faculty input. Still not clear how much input the faculty will get and how. My read is that parts of this policy are indeed necessary for the board to do its work, other parts are an attempt by Geller and Gottfredson to consolidate their ongoing efforts to take power and responsibility away from the UO faculty.
Senate speakers:
Rob: Happy we finally have this board, etc.
Margie: Faculty unhappy with this policy. Hope you won’t vote on it now, but if you do hope you’ll be open to “minor edits”. Some dismay we were not shown it. Gives a good explanation why shared governance is important. Leads to better decisions, better morale. “With-holding of information leads to faculty distrust” Stanley Fish. She reads them the riot act, very politely.
Committee reports: Capital proposals coming spring, summer.
Executive and audit: Working on retention and authority document and audit process.
Provost’s report: Coltrane: Started process with Kyr to revise mission statement and academic plan. Will be done with full consultation with faculty.
Public Comment: Johnny Earl, SEIU. 1700 staff. Furlough days for staff, not for OAs. Pay delays, hard when you are making $20K and trying to raise a family. Deserve a better deal. Staff are honored to be representatives of UO.
Carla McNelly: Chair of the Senate ombudsman committee, chief Steward of SEIU local, gets daily calls about worksite issues. Daily complaints about how staff are treated, low morale. Encourage board to preserve the power of the Senate
John Bonine: reads statement on Retention and Delegation of Rights, asks board for delay: [As sent to the UO Senate.]
March 27, 3014
Chair Ford and other Members of the Board of Trustees.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
My name is John Bonine. I have been a Professor of Law at the University of Oregon for 36 years. In terms of relevance to your work, I teach Administrative Law and Constitutional Law. I am the most senior member of the law faculty and I hold the B.B. Kliks Endowed Chair in Law, for which I thank the donor. The University Senate has given me its highest award for university service, the Wayne Westling Award.
I appear before you to ask that you delay until your June meeting any action on adopting the “Policy on Retention and Delegation of Authority.”[1]
This is the next item on your agenda, starting at 9:00 am. I make this request for these reasons:
- The draft policy only became publicly available a couple of days ago on your website. No notice of this policy was given to University Senate, the faculty, the staff, and the student body. None of the members of the loyal university community who will be affected by this policy has had a chance to read the document and make suggestions for improvement. Yet within the document itself, Paragraph 2.4 says this:
Public Notice. Except for emergency and temporary Board actions and Presidential actions, all Board actions and Presidential actions shall be approved in a manner reasonably calculated to provide public notice of the proposed and final approval.
Presumably a manner that is “reasonably calculated” to provide “public notice” does not mean just a few days of pro forma notice without any meaningful consultation with faculty, staff, and students.
I am of course aware that Board members Susan Gary and Sam Dotters-Katz have been involved, but that is an internal process and not the consultative process that is appropriate for a major university.
- The document is complex and in my view it makes significant and abrupt changes in the policies and procedures by which the university has operated for many years. Some may disagree with that assessment. But there has been no opportunity to discuss this matter.
- The document contains errors, such as misstating the name of the University Constitution. It furthermore misstates the ratification status of the University Constitution. Perhaps there are other errors. Nobody in the university community outside two Board members have had the opportunity to delve into this document, which has been published only during Spring Break when most faculty members are absent from campus. Adopting this policy without a broader review will diminish the confidence of the faculty in their authority and may adversely affect the respect that this Board deserves from the University’s faculty and others.
- Unless some changes are made and an inclusive process is followed before adoption, the draft policy may make attracting high quality talent to the University more difficult. In contrast to the longstanding national and statewide norm of shared governance – first established by the State Legislature nearly 140 years ago and updated most recently last year – this draft policy posits a top-down model of governance. Although some can argue that such a top-down approach has been implicit in state law for decades, it has not been that way in practice. I dread the impact on faculty recruitment nationwide if the Board quickly adopts such a seeming top-down approach – and without discussion in appropriate faculty and other groups.
- Although the policy may have undergone discussion and drafting in a Board committee and have been circulated for discussion and consideration prior to the meeting, I do not consider that to be all that you need in order to formulate good policy. You have immense intellectual resources on this campus. It will only benefit your governance to consult with them on policies that will affect all future relations with them for years to come.
Here are some of the problematic aspects of the draft policy. As a lawyer – a member of the California and Oregon Bars, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court Bar – I believe that small inaccuracies in writing sometimes reveal lack of care in thinking. If what has been written is carefully crafted but knowingly not accurate, I become even more concerned.
- University of Oregon Constitution. Paragraph 4.4 refers to a so-called “Faculty Constitution.” No such document exists. What we have is a “University of Oregon Constitution” that was adopted unanimously by a general assembly of the “statutory faculty” after long months of consultation and drafting among the faculty, members of the Administration, students, and staff.[2] One of your own members, Professor Susan Gary, played a major role in that process.
- Ratification of Constitution. Paragraph 4.4 refers to this Constitution as having been “adopted” by the faculty but still “subject to ratification by the President [of the University].” This difference in language implies that while the faculty has acted, the President has not acted yet and that the document is still “subject to ratification by the President.” This is not the case. The Constitution was ratified by the previous President of the University of Oregon[3] and the current President has also ratified it by memorandum. He specifically stated on his website on May 20, 2013:
Some have wondered why I have not “signed the constitution.” My signature is unnecessary because the document is already operative, having been signed by my predecessor in 2011. We have followed the constitution processes since my arrival. . . . I am sending a memorandum to the president of the University Senate with my affirmation of the constitution and my commitment not to seek its modification except as provided for in the constitution itself.[4]
He similarly stated in a letter dated July 1, 2013, to the current President of the University Senate, Professor Margie Paris:
This correspondence serves to formalize and affirm my commitment to the University of Oregon Constitution.[5]
Given this, it is puzzling that the proposed policy omits this information and leaves an inaccurate impression about the status of the Constitution.
- Standards of student conduct. Although Paragraph 1.1 states that the Board shall engage in “consultation with the faculty, students and staff members” when adopting a mission statement for the University, Paragraph 1.3 envisions no such consultation with regard to standards of student conduct. Instead, it says: “The Board has the authority to establish written standards of student conduct.” Yet Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) have clearly stated for nearly 140 years that the faculty and President have the power over the discipline of the University. This power is “subject to the supervision” of the Board,” but the draft policy entirely omits mention here of the faculty’s role. The Student Conduct Code has always been enacted by the University Senate with the approval of the President – not by the State Board of Higher Education. Why should that change? Furthermore, such a change would be of questionable legality. See ORS 352.010, which states:
The president and professors constitute the faculty of each of the public universities listed in ORS 351.011 and as such have the immediate government and discipline of the public university and the students therein, except as otherwise provided by statute or action of the State Board of Higher Education. The faculty may, subject to the supervision of the board under ORS 351.070, prescribe the course of study to be pursued in the public university and the textbooks to be used.[6]
I am aware that previous Boards and this Board have overall authority, but this policy seems to start from that direction, without recognizing the continuing other authority in state law.
- Establishment of faculty code of conduct. Similarly, no consultation or delegation is envisioned in Paragraph 1.6.2 with regard to “written codes of conduct” for faculty members. The role of the faculty that is stated in ORS 352.010[7] is simply ignored in this draft policy. The draft policy instead proposes that a faculty of conduct be established solely by the Board. Is that top-down approach really what this Board wants as a policy? It is completely different from, for example, the policy of the University of California where the faculty code of conduct is established by the Academic Senate, and then subject to approval by their Board of Regents.[8]
- Dismissal of faculty member. Paragraph 5.0 states that faculty members are “responsible to the President of the University” and through him to the Board of Trustees. Responsibility presumably implies the power of the President to direct faculty members and to dismiss them. Perhaps I should be pleased that nothing in the draft policy explicitly establishes the power to dismiss faculty, but I am not. Clarity is important. Contrast that to the Standing Orders of the University of California, which provide: “Prior to recommending dismissal, the Chancellor shall consult with the appropriate advisory committee(s) of the Division of the Academic Senate.”[9] Such a process of peer review and due-process hearing for tenured faculty members is indeed in University of Oregon regulations, but nothing in this new draft policy refers to such regulations.
- Source of faculty authority for shared governance. Paragraph 1.8.3 asserts that the faculty has a role in shared governance only because it is delegated that role by the Board. This ignores ORS 352.010, enacted nearly 140 years ago, which has not been repealed and gives the faculty such a rule as a matter of state legislation.[10]
- University committees. There are elements in the draft policy’s formulation of university committees that are inconsistent with the University Senate’s process.
In summary, I urge you to postpone adoption of this policy until others have had a chance to provide suggestions to you.
Respectfully submitted,
John E. Bonine
B.B. Kliks Professor of Law
[1] http://trustees.uoregon.edu/sites/trustees3.wc-sites.uoregon.edu/files/field/image/March%202014%20Agenda%20032114%20-%20final%20-%20post.pdf.
[2] The Constitution of the University of Oregon, http://senate.uoregon.edu/sites/senate.uoregon.edu/files/Constitution%20of%20the%20UODec_15_2011.pdf.
[3] Ibid. The signature of the President of the University of Oregon is on the first page.
[4] “President Gottfredson’s comments on shared governance,” http://president.uoregon.edu/content/president-gottfredson%E2%80%99s-comments-shared-governance.
[5] Letter from Michael Gottfredson to Margie Paris, July 1, 2013, http://senate.uoregon.edu/sites/senate.uoregon.edu/files/President%27s%20Affirmation%20of%20UO%20Constitution.pdf.
[6] Oregon Revised Statutes section 352.010, originally adopted in 1876 and as amended in 1987, 1989, 2011, and 2013. http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors352.html.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Regents Policy 7401: The Faculty Code of Conduct and the Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline. http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/policies/7401.html.
[9] Standing Order 101. Faculty Members and Other Employees of the University, http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/standing-orders/so1011.html.
[10] Footnote 6, supra.
Chuck Lillis: Explains how this happened, who was involved. We need to start work in July, need foundational documents like this one. Doc says the Trustees have authority over UO, consistent with law and tradition. [But then they violate those traditions.]
Some responsibilities the board cannot delegate – financial matters that the university can decide on without board review. Replicate what OUS board did and the powers it had. Doc was written to keep the board out of day to day matters, keep them at the policy and strategy level.
Doc says board is in charge, reserve a few rights, delegate the rest to the President. Lillis intends to get this done today. Willing to modify later.
Geller: There are no major departures from what State board does.
Gottfredson: Need to have the board fully operational by 7/1. Asked Geller not to chance things. Take comments of Paris and Bonine to heart. Good to get some advice, consult with faculty – but later.
Lillis: Any comments from the board?
Dotters-Katz: So, Randy, no legal mandate to do this today? Geller: No. DK: Board needs buy in and support of university constituencies. Faculty have raised concerns about content and process. Let’s delay and get their buy-in.
Member: Randy has tried to take a minimalist approach, possibility for more comprehensive look later. Urges action today or tomorrow.
Gottfredson: Adopt with provision it will be reconsidered.
Member: That’s the least we can. Specific problems have been raised. Is Randy confident in what he’s done here? Randy: Waffles.
Willcox: Only a portion of the board was involved. This is a first draft. It would be helpful for Randy to clarify how his languages corresponds with OUS rules. We have stumbled out of the gate here. Important not to move forward given these concerns and suspicions. We should delay this and clarify the process we are using to consult with the faculty. In specifics, surprised that the policy gives the board no role in approving collective bargaining agreement.
Susan Gary: I would be reluctant to adopt today, except that delay will back up a lot of work. So lets go forward with this flawed policy. I appreciate the criticism that should have been more public, I’d never thought of that. Adopt now, make serious commitment to revisit in June.
Colas: Delay decision til tomorrow.
Willcox: What can’t we do until this is approved?
Jamie Moffitt: Blows some smoke.
Geller: If the board doesn’t approve, it will mean more work for the board.
Lillis: Lots of serious effort put into this, too bad it looks so casual, I don’t think it was. Let’s delay for now, talk about it tomorrow. Not sure it’s worth further delay.
[Still not any process for faculty input].
Ballmer: Issue is that faculty has concerns – what’s the process for getting their input?
[Good for her!]
Back at 10:30.
Jamie Moffitt and Brad Shelton on budgets:
Shelton is giving his usual talk about the budget model. He’s blaming the union for the new plan to take money away from CAS and keep it to be spent by JH. Moffitt does a very nice job explaining overhead recalculation and so on. I’ll post the slide show when it’s available.
Basically, finances are in balance: low revenue, low expenses. Fiscally responsible, but not going to keep us in the AAU.
Glad to see you back!
With this power grab attempt, it appears Gottfredson and Geller have as little regard for the Trustees as they do for Faculty, patronizing them by alluding to ‘more work for them’ if they choose to deliberate, consult and contemplate the results of their actions rather than passing it as-is. However, G and G may have out maneuvered themselves this time. Who in their right mind passes justifiably objectionable policies with little review, relying on a fall back of “we can change it later”? That is no way to responsibly administrate a university, and I imagine there are more than a few Trustees that don’t intend to be rubber stamps for flawed policies, especially now, no matter how much extra work it might make for themselves.
Wow, you gave the admins a whole three days before you began blogging again. Anyone else think this was a set-up?
No. And I am happy to see this report on the meeting.
So the Board’s faculty rep Susan Gary (Law) helped draft this, but she was not going to tell the faculty a word about it until after it was adopted?
Yes, that seems to be correct.
And now SDK is the trustee leading the effort to redraft the policy to incorporate faculty governance? My mind is blown.
Thank you, UO Matters and Prof. Bonine.
yes, thanks to JB and UOM. Small acts of initiative and courage often make a real difference. jB’s attention to detail and commitment to principles have pulled our bacon out of more than one administrative fire over the years.
What is the procedure in place for Gary to report back to the Faculty? Is there one, or has it been conveniently delegated to stand in line as a “timely report to the Senate”, a la James O’Fallon as Faculty Athletic Rep ?
If there is no procedure, then isn’t the Faculty Board Rep actually just a token member meant to represent all the faculty without meaningful consultation and as a mocking commitment to “shared governance”? Same could be said for the Student Rep. And since that’s likely the case, the Senate and Constitution become more important than ever.
The Faculty, Student, and employee people on the board of trustees actually are NOT described as “representatives.” It is an odd hybrid where they are on the board because of their status as faculty, staff or student, but they are not expected to themselves be representatives of the entire group or to be the reporting agent, apparently. However, it would seem like they should consider the interests of their groups and help promote transparency, encourage the board and admin to communicate back to the larger community, etc..
Interesting information.
Philosophically speaking, some questions. If they are not “representative”, then why are they classed as faculty, staff or student vs other board members? Isn’t that more than a little misleading? If they are not expected to be official representatives of their peers OR reporting agents to “their groups”, then why include them on the board? Did Gary or Dotters-Katz have credentials that made them significantly more worthy to serve on the board than other ‘hybrids’ Who came up with this “odd hybrid” and decided UO needed to be a proving ground for it?
They are not meant to “represent”. They are meant to be tokens of groups that will have no influence at all.
Well … yeah. But if you just state the obvious truth, you are “damaging the university” and run the risk of being branded a paranoid conspiratist.
Scheduling the Board meeting and major governance changes during spring break. Coincidence? Guess what summer is going to look like about 15 minutes after all the faculty, students and most the GTFs go home.
PLEASE Trustees, we the faculty, students, staff, and a majority of the administration are laying all our hopes and dreams for the University of Oregon on your shoulders! Please, do not let us down.
Geller’s petty intrigues have been such a time-sink for the faculty, the administration, and now for the board.
You guys are outdoing the Cover Oregon crew.
Geller repeatedly comes across as both a tyrant and as incompetent. Apparently he cannot help himself. But how could someone as smart and wise as Gottfredson keep Geller on? That is what is most baffling.
Keep Geller.
Keep Espy (!)
Reward Bean with a rich meaningless sinecure.
Take in a salary far beyond that of comparators while maybe allowing a secret review.
Can you blame him? (Yes, but he still gets PAID.)
Why do you think Gottfredson is so smart and wise? What has he done to indicate that?
Big kudos to UO Matters for this eye-opening piece of investigative journalism! When the power-hungry administrative hydra, Gottfredgellerson, reared its ugly heads, UO Matters and Prof. Bonine were there to defend the faculty’s interests. It seems that the Board sat up and took notice of Gottfredgellerson’s power maneuver and responded appropriately. Connie Ballmer’s call for faculty input is music to my ears! Thank you, UO Matters and Prof. Bonine!
If I were Gottfredson — or really any of the senior administrators at UO — I would be deeply embarrassed by Geller. Come to think of it, I’m just a faculty member and I’m embarrassed by Geller. Are they not embarrassed? If not, how doubly embarrassing.