Prologue: Gottfredson fired Bean yesterday, after lots of faculty pressure. A good day for UO, probably the best since we got rid of Frohnmayer. The Senate will chase off Espy next, then Geller. The polling suggests that people see Westhead as Mullens’ problem. Fair enough.
- Rudnick throws a fit, claiming she represents “The University” not “The Administration”. OK, so let “The University” see your invoices and your schedule of meetings with Gottfredson.
- The Administration tries to move bargaining location as far as possible away from The University, by lying about the B-School refusing to reserve 450 Lillis.
- JH wants to be able to discipline faculty for spilling info about, say, athletic subsidies, if they think it’s confidential.
- Rudnick presents botched drug and alcohol policy, gets dissected by faculty team.
- Gleason and Blandy pull Clarence Thomas imitations.
Cast: No Geller, no Altmann. Usuals plus 7 faculty, a student, and a union staffer in the room.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what people said, meant to say, or were really thinking, in the depths of whatever once passed for their soul. Nothing is a quote unless in ” “.
Rudnick: Wants to move the bargaining sessions off campus from Lillis to ORI to make it more difficult for faculty to attend the sessions about wages. Unbelievable. Mauer: No. Rudnick: She and Blandy and Gleason are pretending that they don’t have authority to book 450 Lillis? Mauer: We are committed to give you our economic proposals (raises). We would like the same from you. Rudnick: Looking very, very pissed about something. She friends with Bean? Mauer: We want to add more sessions because you have been so slow. Rudnick: Very, very tight-lipped. Mauer: Let’s go back to your claim that you are “The University” instead of the faculty and the students. Rudnick: “It’s demeaning for you to insist that we are not the university.” Mauer: We don’t mean to demean you. Rudnick: This is very, very important to us. We are not going to let you call us the administration. Wow, even the administrators don’t want to be called the administration? Things in JH must be really bad.
Mauer: Asks again for the 3.5% raise – faculty are leaving, searching (no kidding). Rudnick: No. Mauer asks again. Rudnick starts writing it down. Mauer: It’s now hiring season. In the past there have been occasions when current faculty got raises when new hires came in at competitive market wages. We expect this to continue, and we want the administration to consult with us. Rudnick is livid. Worst I’ve ever seen her. Having a hard time thinking.
What happened yesterday? Did Gottfredson tell her he’s firing Geller, and that her contract and $400 rate will now be re-evaluated, after consideration of whether or not it really makes sense for her to represent the administration, given her history fighting the union and her firm’s ties to Frohnmayer and Nike? I’m having a hard time understanding what else would set her off like this.
Now she’s almost shouting. I’m not sure about what. Mauer is calm. Rudnick is interrupting him. Mauer: We are not conceding, we will continue to try and persuade you, calmly and rationally. Rudnick: Stares down at paper, shaking in anger.
Art 18: Discipline and Termination for Cause: The administration’s counterproposal.
Rudnick: Discipline will normally be rendered in a progressive manner. (Dr. Guillotine was a progressive.) We’ve included a long list of examples of things that we can discipline faculty for:
Neglect of duty
Crimes
Drunk or high during work time (I saw a study showing something like 60% of PI’s used Adderall or similar while preparing NSF or NIH proposals.)
Misuse of records or information by people like UO Matters
Things you might do off campus…
Mauer: Well established guidelines for “just cause”. You are saying the university will be able to punish for a crime even if there’s no conviction? Rudnick: Yes. We want the right to discipline every faculty member for their own special crimes, regardless of whether the DA would prosecute for it. Mauer: Where did you get this list? Rudnick: Variety of sources including “anecdotal experiences”. We included these specific examples to put you faculty on notice. Davidson: So for any conduct away from work, you would have to show it affected work performance? Rudnick: Yes. Davidson: I take a phone call at work about a civil disobedience action I am planning. Rudnick: We’d have to show it affects your ability to do your job or interferes with work. Psaki: I go to a confidential FAC meeting – I could be disciplined for breaking the cone of silence? (Say, talking to a reporter about Bean’s hidden $1.83 million Jock Box subsidy?) Rudnick: Yes.
Gleason and Blandy are just sitting there while Rudnick says everything – not a word from them. Wise.
Mauer: What sorts of perks would you take away for discipline? Rudnick: Bowl game junkets. No, wait, those only go to administrators. She can’t think of anything else. Mauer: Parking passes? So the sanctions might not be related to the particulars of the offense? Green: Take away research funds? Mauer: What do you mean by “public censure”? ( I’m guessing that’s from Frohnmayer, he’s always saying I should be “publicly censured” for writing this blog. Whatever.) Rudnick: I’ll get you some clarity for that.
Rudnick’s cheering up, now that she’s thinking about all the possible ways to punish faculty.
Mauer: History professor accused of fabricating facts, university takes away his tenure. Arbitrable? Blandy: No, that’s academic judgement, decision stops at the president.
Rudnick: If you don’t show up for 10 days during an academic year without getting leave you are deemed to have “abandoned your job”. And this is not grievable! So, if I spend 10 days out of the year doing research from home they can fire me automatically? She can’t mean this. Can she?
Act II:
Criminal background checks: Currently for hiring and promotion, now can be done at any time. Great idea, it’s distressing to think that some child pornographer might be posting to Facebook from, say, Johnson Hall. Speaking of which, how’s that public records request coming, Dave?
Rudnick: We also want faculty to tell us if they are charged with a crime. Mauer: Any crime? Rudnick: Yes. Not if arrested, but if actually charged with something more than traffic violation type stuff. (Distilling and bottling Cha-Cha without a permit? It’s not paranoia when they really are after you.)
Rudnick: Drug and alcohol testing if reasonable suspicion it interferes with job responsibilities. So, no more drunken VP’s tailgating at Autzen? Or does this only apply to faculty? Mauer: Definition of “under the influence”? Rudnick: Blow anything positive – not the DUI standard. Termination is the penalty for 2 positive tests. Rennie’s is going to lose a lot of business. No alcohol in Gerlinger? Maybe exemption for university functions? (Sorry if I’m not getting this all down correctly, I’m still a little buzzed from all the scotch we drank celebrating last night.) Cecil: Can’t take grad students to Rennie’s for beers after the last class? Green: This will apply to admin too? Rudnick: It could, administrators would get to decide if they want to test administrators. Of course they would.
Back and forth about what defines “under the influence”. Glass of wine at lunch? Rudnick did a very poor job preparing this counterproposal – didn’t even include that definition. She got another billable hour out of the resulting confusion though. Perverse incentives.
Art ?: Union Rights. Rudnick’s counterproposal.
Rudnick: We don’t want union reps going onto university property and interfering with work or the public. Mauer: What’s interference with the public? Not intended to prevent union people from talking to public on UO property? Rudnick: correct. Blandy: E.g. union member hands out leaflets at art opening. Cecil: So we couldn’t hand out leaflets at Autzen? Rudnick: (She’s worried that a faculty member would come up to Gottfredson at an Schnitzer opening while he’s schmoozing and harrang him about union stuff. Seems like a reasonable concern.)
Rudnick: Union is not a university entity – not controlled by UO, not subject to public records and meetings law. This proposal makes that clear. (What about the UO Foundation then?) Mauer’s on this one, more later.
Rudnick: At new faculty orientation, we may revamp things so union can’t make a presentation, will allow handouts. She wants to charge union for staff time involved in getting information for the union.
Mauer: Let’s call it a day. Some back and forth on location. Rudnick *really* wants to move this off campus, starts foaming again.
Everyone is expendible for an independent board.
Everyone but not every thing.
What’s an “independent” board? It’s starting to sound like it’s going to be donors and corporate execs, operating “independent” of meaningful faculty or government oversight.
Righteous anger is good. Character assassination is bad.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Ishmael?
I was no fan of unionization for TRF, but the administration sure is trying hard to win me over.
It’s all about UO-M. What is that called again?
Admin would never punish you without good reason, Marmot. Just pee in your jar, and all will be well.
Ah, Marat, how is your bath?
This is all pretty typical stuff.
There are techniques for dealing with cognitive distortions.
Bill, I just want to express, as I’ve done so many times before, how deeply unfortunate your presence is. You are an insult to truth and fairness.
Thanks Jim.
Dog says wow
“how deeply fortunate your presence is”
what a great line to stick in my next letter for tenure
recommendation for someone. Thanks, anon.
“Thanks Jim.”
You are mentally ill, Harbaugh, and it’s really unfortunate and frustrating.
I just removed the sign on JIm’s B-school office door. I think it said something about your presence and something being deeply unfortunate. No matter. Faculty are a forgiving bunch and your record won’t be held over your head forever.
I agree. If Jim does a good job teaching his linear programming classes and scans in a few more papers for his research, all will be forgiven.
If he gets another sabbatical under his belt, he’ll also be all caught up on the literature in his area.
Being a target of UO-M seems to be quite rewarding.
I’m not Jim; I’m not someone who associates with him.
I am expressing my deep frustration that this institution counts among its ranks minds that are truly mediocre (e.g. Nathan Tublitz) and those that are ill (you). I just hope our faculty can start to recognize what is in front of them when they read this blog.
“I’m not Jim” = “Please call me Acting Provost”
‘I’m not Lisa. My name is Julie. Lisa left you years ago.’ J.C.
Dog to “not Jim ”
I only wish I had a mediocre and ill brain – I have
a dog’s brain!
“I’m not Jim”
I understand your deep frustration with Nathan and this blog. Jealously comes in all forms. I’m thinking your not even smart enough to stand in their shadow let alone qualify yourself to spit out a derogatory comment about either that would be taken seriously. Fool…go get a life….somewhere else.
“Not Jim” here.
You are very incorrect, Angry old lady, in thinking that my posts are motivated by jealousy.
We can’t beam you aboard, Not Jim. The transporter’s down again. We’ll try inverse phasing.
…or phrasing.
Drug and Alcohol Testing:
What about Fiesta Bowl junkets? Rumor has it a certain “worse dean in the world” made quite a drunken spectacle of him/herself at a Bowl game gathering. Is that “while performing job duties”?
I’m not sure which is “worse.”
That’s potentially defamatory. Unless of course you’ve got a cell phone video I can post.
These seem like reasonable restrictions.
Even Tim Gleason balked when he realized that he’d technically be subject to discipline for enjoying a wine or beer at lunch.
Are you paying attention Gottfredson? Are you aware of the absurdity of your team’s proposals/counters? Recommendation: fire the lawyers and complete our union contract. A collaborative and respectful future is still possible.
These are standard management proposals.
‘Standard management’ proposals is BS. Faculty spent hundreds of hours last summer raising the standard; the admin/management can and should do better than cut and paste proposals from an anti-union law firm. Raise the bar and respect professionals who make every credit hour and research dollar count here, the faculty – in spite of the ‘standard management’ fare we face.
They is?
“Rudnick: We also want faculty to tell us if they are charged with a crime…”
Some of us have been arrested, more than once, for political protests. Even convicted once or twice. Did she really use the word “crime”? A traffic violation is not a “crime”, as any lawyer knows.
She was clear that a traffic violation was not a crime. Not so clear about political protests. Suppose, for example, you helped organize the occupy protesters to come to campus. I’m guessing they could go after you for that.
…if you were charged with a crime.
Nope – even if you “engaged in conduct that constituted a crime” – whether charged or not. Guess who decides what constitutes a crime?
You?
What’s the current policy?
Are you lookin’ at me?
Would organizing an Occupy movement on campus be a crime?
Not unless you were organizing an Occupy movement to commit a crime.
This lawyer lady is a DF coached clone. Prostituting herself for the cronies of the UO. DF just can’t stop dilly dallying in the UO… and why should he? The UO made him and his friends very wealthy.
Seems to me she has a huge problem with freedom of speech. I’d go so far to say she is in way over her head here. Get real lady this is academia your working with not a bunch of ill gotten legals in a court room….go back to standing on the corner for $400 an hour.