“The university will not retaliate against anyone based on their response to this survey.”

I can’t imagine why our provost would feel the need to put that in writing. I think the gist of his email is that faculty can now opt out of in-person teaching, whether they are obese or not:

Dear Colleagues,

I hope that you and your families are enjoying the summer. I am writing to update you on in-person instruction and to ask that you provide updated information about your availability to teach in person this fall. Please read this message in its entirety and respond to the survey link at the bottom before the close of business on Friday, August 14This survey is specifically for instructional faculty and graduate employees (GEs). We are communicating with other employee groups, managers, and supervisors to support them in their roles at the university and continued planning for the fall.
As outlined below, we continue to develop means to support safe and effective in-person delivery of courses, where our facilities and scheduling allow. Surveys of new and continuing students repeatedly show that in-person instruction is a central component of their decision to join us in the coming year. Additionally, we are dedicated to providing equitable access to education, including to students with disabilities and students for whom, for many reasons, a remote modality creates a real obstacle for accessing their learning.
We appreciate that for us to be successful, our top priority is to provide a safe and supportive environment for everyone on campus. Toward that end, we have been meeting regularly with a safety committee composed of representatives of our various labor groups, and have been hearing their concerns and ideas. Thus far, our first action has been to open up the campus to support the research and scholarly activities of our faculty and staff. We are well underway in opening research spaces in a very deliberate and careful manner—thus far without incident—and hope to shortly expand access for faculty to their offices and creative spaces.
The second stage is to assess whether we can move forward with a curriculum that has a significant portion of instruction done in-class or through a combination of in-person and remote (hybrid) mechanisms. We have made substantial investments in technology and safety measures to provide a classroom environment that is safe and supportive of both in-person and remote delivery modalities. Specifically, teaching in person will be supported by:
  • Provisioning of masks and face shields to all instructors.
  • Plexiglas partitions within the classroom lectern area.
  • Enhanced daily cleaning and availability of student-use “clean-up” wipes.
  • Video cameras and microphones in each classroom that allow recording and/or simultaneous streaming of lectures and in-person/remote classroom discussions.
  • Requirement that everyone in a classroom wear face coverings (accommodations will be provided for students who cannot for medical reasons wear face coverings).
  • Restricted in-person class sizes to allow for physical distancing requirements.
  • Clearly delineated occupancy information that enforces physical distancing requirements within the classroom (verified by the Fire Marshal).
  • Extended transition times between class periods to allow appropriately spaced transitions into and out of classrooms.
  • Instructors will be provided guidance and a centrally defined remediation approach to follow related to the expectation for face covering use in the classroom.
Safety procedures for more specialized spaces, such as teaching laboratories and studios, are being developed at the unit-level and approved centrally through the Incident Management Team.
More broadly, we will also be implementing a comprehensive virus testing program for individuals both on and off campus. The university has built substantial on-campus capacity for testing, now has a certified testing lab, and is in the process of gaining FDA authorization for several new techniques that should make testing much less costly and much easier to implement. More details on this plan will be forthcoming over the next month.
Updating Your Status – In-person Instruction
To more accurately understand our capacity to make this work, we are asking you to update your availability, given the safety measures that are being put into place, by specifically stating if you are willing to provide in-person instruction in the fall. We recognize a number of factors have changed over the last two months that might impact your ability and decision to teach in person, including the fall plans of 4J and other school districts within the state. We also recognize that other aspects of your personal circumstances may have changed as well. Please complete the in-person instruction survey at your earliest convenience. Your survey responses and our use of them are applicable to the fall term 2020 only. Decisions for winter term will be made at a later date.
This survey is in addition to the earlier UO Fall 2020 Request to Continue Working 100% Remotely Survey. All instructional faculty and GEs who did not already complete the prior survey—or who want to change their response to the earlier survey—should complete this survey in order to record your new response to either be remote or teach in person in the fall. If you filled out the prior survey your response will remain unchanged unless you now indicate a change to your prior response. We ask that you take into consideration the safety measures that the university has put in place before making your decision.
Submissions will be received and managed by the Office of Human Resources and will only be accessible to those with a need to know to perform their work. Responses will be compiled and submitted to academic leadership for planning purposes on or around August 16. Thereafter, your department head will follow up to confirm receipt and approval of your request and communicate other applicable information, if any. The university will honor any request to teach remotely during the 2020 fall term and will not retaliate against anyone based on their response to this survey.
This is clearly a challenging time for the entire UO community. By continuing to build upon our core values of respect and mutual support, the entire community will be able to face—and overcome—this challenge together. I thank each of you for your ongoing manifold contributions to this effort.
Patrick Phillips
Provost and Senior Vice President

Pres Schill proposes Pac-12 borrow millions to pay Mullens, coaches

That’s right, he’ll mortgage future income to pay Rob Mullens and the coaches now. Why not? They’ll all be gone when the bill comes due – just as Dave Frohnmayer is.

Meanwhile the faculty is on its own. Jon Wilner has the scoop in the San Jose Mercury, here:

The Pac-12 is planning a mammoth loan program that would provide an escape hatch for cash-strapped athletic departments in the event the football season is canceled because of coronavirus, according to internal documents and conference sources.

Football accounts for the majority of each department’s revenue, generating in excess of $50 million dollars in ticket sales and media rights alone.

The loan program would be large enough to cover that loss for each school, if needed:

According to a series of emails obtained by the Hotline through public records requests, the loan would provide a maximum of $83 million for each university at a rate of 3.75 percent over 10 years.

… Schill, who succeeded DiStefano as chair of the conference’s CEO Group on July 1, responded:

“I didn’t either. I did know that Larry was going to investigate putting together a loan. I guess he went with Raine. I hope the terms reflect work and not a finder’s fee that is outside the norm.”

(Through a spokesperson, Schill declined to comment, and Scott was not available.) …

Some good news on fall enrollments

From Inside Higher Ed:

First, one piece of relatively good news. Our results indicate that as of July 21 the overall impact of the coronavirus on the fall plans of students who were already enrolled in some form of postsecondary education in spring 2020 before COVID-induced shutdowns was modest. Only 2 percent of those students say they and/or their child/household member are not enrolling in the fall and cite COVID as a reason, and another 3 percent say they are changing institutions as a result of COVID. While 11 percent of these respondents say they are taking fewer classes as a result of COVID, 10 percent say they are taking more classes.

Read the article for the bad news.

Faculty Union to hold town hall to answer questions about pay cut deal

Dear Colleague,

All members of United Academics are invited to a Town Hall on Tuesday, August 4 from noon to 1:30. The Zoom link is below.

We are soliciting questions from members on a variety of issues we are facing as a community. Please submit your question(s) here. We will also take questions during the meeting, but advance notice allows for UA to make sure more of your questions are addressed. If you are unable to attend live, a recording of the meeting will be available on our website.

Thank you for all that you do for the university and our students!

When: Aug 4, 2020 12:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
Passcode: 489736

The Administration has also sent this around, with a helpful FAQ:

NOTE: This message is being sent to the PI list and OVPRI Center & Institute Directors.

**Sent on behalf of Missy Matella**

Dear Colleagues,

As announced last week, the university and United Academics have reached tentative agreements on several key issues including career instructional faculty FTE for AY 20-21, an expectation of continued employment for our career instructional and research faculty, and a progressive pay reduction plan.

Employee and Labor Relations has added answers to frequently asked questions regarding these agreements. The FAQ includes further explanation of the terms of the tentative agreements and a section specifically for research-related information.

Please reach out to Employee and Labor Relations at uoelr@uoregon.edu or vpri@uoregon.edu if you have any questions or need further assistance.

Best regards,

Missy Matella
Senior Director, Employee and Labor Relations

Hiring freeze won’t stop Prov. Phillips from creating new “Director of Entrepreneurship and Economic Transformation” job

8/2/2020 update: According to an often reliable informant, a donor (presumably one with an optimistic view of the effectiveness of transformational change facilitators) has contributed the funds for the first few years of this new position. After that it is meant to be self-funded by money raised by this office. We’ll see.

7/31/2020: My theory is that there are so many buzzwords floating around Johnson Hall that every now and then they have to let a bunch of them spew out, in a semi-controlled release. I wonder how many faculty pay cuts will be soaked up by our newest transformational and entrepreneurial central administrator facilitator of change?


Position Summary
The Director of the Office of Entrepreneurship and Economic Transformation is a facilitator of change and investment on campus. Their primary initial responsibility is to partner with other University leaders in entrepreneurship and innovation to build a sophisticated network that connects the university’s academic, research, and economic development missions of the university to help the university make rapid progress in these areas. They build relationships internally, partnering with the leadership of UO’s academic units and their brilliant faculty, staff, and students; forging infrastructure for innovation; and advancing UO’s values of equity, diversity and inclusion. The Director also connects the UO externally, sharing the stories of innovation at UO with stakeholders, fostering investment relationships with entrepreneurs and industry leaders, building a pipeline for venture creation and commercialization, and soliciting philanthropic gifts for the future of the university’s work as an economic driver for the state and region. This includes garnering the financial resources needed to ensure long term success of the unit. They also play an important role in communicating the UO’s role in the economic development of state, as well as collaborating to convene statewide conversations in this space so as to position the UO as positive contributor and change-agent in ensuring the economic viability and prosperity of the state as whole.

Reporting jointly to the Provost and Senior Vice President and the Vice President for University Advancement, the Director plays an important role in positioning the University of Oregon as a leader in higher education and innovation, in serving as an economic engine for the local community, state and region. This position supervises a team of three. The University of Oregon is committed to creating a more inclusive and diverse institution and seeks candidates with demonstrated potential to contribute positively to its diverse community.

Professional Competencies
• Entrepreneurial leadership: Ability to lead the building of entrepreneurial infrastructure.
• Partnerships: Ability to act as a core advisor and partner to the Senior Vice President and Provost, the Provost’s Innovation Council, other academic leadership, faculty and graduate students to foster innovation and entrepreneurship, navigate venture creation, and build an understanding of industry. Ability to inspire increased faculty participation and partnership with external partners. Ability to partner with other University leaders in entrepreneurship and innovation to build a sophisticated network that connects the university’s academic, research, and economic development missions of the university. Ability to maintain strong partnerships with on- and off-campus partners to create and sell new programs and initiatives.
• Higher education and industry knowledge: High level of programmatic and institutional knowledge, including an understanding of the needs and opportunities of businesses including but not limited to the life sciences, manufacturing, science and/or technology industry, and engineering.
• Strategic planning: Ability to provide leadership in supporting institution wide effort to build a network of entrepreneurship and economic impact that connects academic programs, and research to external opportunities. Ability to collaboratively articulate and execute strategic plan while clearly understanding and positioning the institution in comparison to aspirant peers.
• Working with donors, stakeholders, and prospects: Sophistication in prospective donor and entrepreneurship partner identification, cultivation, and solicitation with a demonstrated ability to serve as a core anchor relationship between individuals and the campus.


UO relaxes hiring freeze – for learning specialists willing to help Duck players with “a lack of academic preparation”

This is the first time I’ve seen Lorraine put it so plainly – or lay out what a tough and poorly paid job this is:

Quoting from the full ad here:

The Learning Specialist must be willing to work a flexible year-round schedule, including evenings and weekends.

Master’s degree or equivalent combination of education, experience, and skills.

Experience working with students experiencing academic challenges for any reason,
including but not limited to, a lack of academic preparation, …

Salary: $38,000 – $40,500 per year

Meanwhile, for the coaches:

And for Lorraine Davis:

Faculty Union’s deal is a big improvement over Pres Schill’s April ultimatum

It’s still a pay cut (assuming the revenue shortfall is large enough to trigger it) and it does nothing to constrain JH from pissing away money on the Phildo, Law School, etc. The cuts will apply to faculty and OAs – I’m not sure if that will include Knight Campus faculty & administrators. In exchange the administration agrees to take its pistol away from the heads of the 211 NTTFs up for renewal this year and give them full 1.0 FTE contracts. Here’s the UAUO explanation:


UA Town Hall

United Academics invites all members of United Academics to a Town Hall on Tuesday, August 4 from noon to 1:30. The Zoom link is below.

Please submit your question(s) here. We will also take questions during the meeting, but advance notice allows for us to make sure your questions are addressed. If you are unable to attend live, a recording of the meeting will be available on our website.

We have a deal!

After four weeks of tough bargaining, we struck a tentative deal with the administration over the restoration of FTE, a progressive salary cut package, and the outlines of how we will revise the system for employing Career faculty. The bargaining team believes this is a good deal and a vast improvement on the salary cut plan offered in April.

Before we get to the details, the bargaining team would like to give a hearty thank you to all the members who tuned in to watch. Over 200 unique viewers joined some part of the sessions. Bargaining via Zoom is new to all of us, and it felt very different not to have the live feedback of supporters in the room, but we were constantly cheered knowing that people were with us (if at a safe distance).

We were not able to reach any agreement on a new Tenure Reduction Plan (TRP) or a buyout program for those wishing to retire. We agreed to meet to try to find agreement in the coming months, because both parties agree that the system needs revising, but both parties felt there was too much uncertainty about what faculty would want and what the administration can afford to change right now. We also will discuss whether we can find a way to help those faculty who are currently in their three years before going on reduced TRP hours to avoid taking a permanent cut to their retirement benefits.

We are still dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on this tentative agreement; when that is done, we will send out information on a ratification vote along with the finalized text of a Memorandum of Understanding. We will be voting on the FTE restoration and salary cut portions of the Agreement. We still have about a month of work to do on the system for Career contracts before it is ready for the membership to vote on it; expect to see the details of that plan in October.

A Summary of our Agreement with the Administration.

FTE fully restored: All Career faculty who received renewal notices in May with lowered FTE will have their FTE restored to the same FTE they held in AY19-20. All Career faculty who were issued new contracts due to receiving a promotion will have their FTE restored to the FTE they held in AY19-20.

Withdrawn promotions: Career faculty who had their promotion submitted to the Provost but withdrew their file can opt to have their file reviewed by the Provost as if it had not been withdrawn. The review should be complete before the start of the academic year.

Reduced amount of salary cut: The agreed-upon employee salary cut is up to $20M over one year. In April, the administration’s proposal called for up to $100M in employee salary cuts over four years.

Threshold: The Agreement calls for the administration to mitigate the first $15 million of any losses and any losses over $35 million. Employee salary cuts will mitigate losses between $15 million and $35 million. The administration’s April PPR called for all losses to be addressed immediately through salary cuts.

Lowered the rates for the lowest earners: The chart below calculates the effective salary cut for employees at selected base salary levels with a comparison to the comparable rates in the April PPR plan. Cuts do not impact stipends, awards, or overloads.

Percentage cut for salaries of the Tentative Agreement vs. the Administration’s April PPR.
Our plan is for one year; theirs was for up to four. 

Although we were not able to bargain for a higher tier, we were able to raise the amount of the cut on those earning more than $200,000 from an April 16% rate to 18% rate. The money from this increase was used to raise the floor of the cuts from $30K in the administration’s April proposal to $45K in the Agreement.

Delayed implementation: There are two possible times that the salary cut plan could be triggered. If the university experiences a tuition deficit and/or a cut in state funding in November greater than $15 million, the administration could trigger wage cuts to save enough to make up for a decrease in revenue between $15 million and $35 million.

It is more likely that the salary cut plan will be triggered next summer. The administration can wait until summer 2021 and trigger the salary cut plan by combining losses due to tuition revenue decreases, cuts to promised state support, and state support in the 2021-23 biennium budget.

The salary cut plan can only be triggered once and there can be no more than 12 months of salary cuts.

Research faculty exempt: Because their salary derives mostly from grants, research assistants, research associates, research professors, and post docs will be exempt from the wage cut plan. This is unchanged from the administration’s PPR plan.

The details of the above summaries will be sent to all members of the union shortly, along with information on the ratification vote.

Expectation of Continued Employment

The bargaining teams also agreed to the basis of a new system for employing non-funding contingent instructional Career faculty. We believe this will be a much better system, but there are many details to work out, as it will impact several articles in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Below is a summary of the key points. More information will be shared as we work on the details.

No more contracts and renewals: The current system of one-, two-, and three-year contracts is vastly better than having no job security at all. We have, however, run into some fairly significant problems. As Deans ordered cuts, departments and units were forced to choose among the faculty who happened to be up for renewal. This led to situations where only faculty who had achieved promotion could be non-renewed, which was not always ideal. We also saw an increase in contracts that offered low FTE in the second and third years of contracts – 1.0, 0.1, 0.1 contracts. And, of course, we had the events of this spring, a disaster we cannot allow to be repeated.

The system described below would address many of these issues and only applies to non-funding contingent Career faculty. It will not be perfect, and it will not guarantee that a Career faculty member can never lose their job, but we believe that this will be a much better system with stronger protections than our current one.

Expectation and rationale: Non-funding contingent Career faculty will have the expectation of continued employment that can only be ended for legitimate financial, academic, or performance reasons after the first year of employment. Career faculty in their first year can be laid off for any reason.

Notice: Career faculty in their first year can be laid off with 30 days’ notice. Faculty in their second year, but who have not achieved promotion can be laid off with 90 days’ notice. Faculty who have achieved promotion must be given 12 months’ notice before the layoff goes into effect.

Earned seniority: Layoffs are based on the functions and skills required to perform necessary work, but layoffs will generally follow earned seniority. This means that Career faculty who have not earned promotion will be laid off before Senior I faculty and Senior I before Senior II.

Expedited arbitration: Faculty who have received a layoff notice will be able to challenge the legitimacy of the layoff through an expedited binding arbitration process. The goal will be to have the layoff notice formally reviewed before it goes into effect. This system will replace the current grievance-arbitration system that can take several months to complete.

FTE maintenance: Assigned FTE cannot go down, except by mutual agreement between the faculty member and university.

Rehire at same FTE: While we have not worked out a complete recall system, we have agreed that faculty members hired back by the university into the same category – instructor, research assistant, research associate, lecturer, librarian, etc. – cannot be hired at a lower FTE than what they held before they were laid off.

Though we have more work to do to complete the full contract bargaining we began in January, and though our current circumstances have complicated all of these processes, we believe the agreement we have reached is a good one. The bargaining team, again, appreciates all the support we have received. Without member support and participation, we would not have been able to sustain our energy and determination through this unusual time, and we would not have reached such a favorable agreement.

Bargaining IX, Tu at 9AM

July 28 @ 9 am. You can register for the sessions here.

Usual disclaimer: my thoughts on what people are saying, trying to say, trying to be thinking, etc. Nothing is a quote unless in ” ” ‘s.


Costs faculty and OA’s $19.5M

Admin Caucus until 10:15. 11:10.

The admin is back with a a counter.

I’ll post more later, but their basic plan, in contrast to the union proposal, is to tax middle wage workers more and reduce the tax on the high earners, who are mostly upper administrators. What a surprise.

11:30 AM – I’ll add that Brad Shelton is making an ass of himself, as usual.

2:08 PM – I’ve missed a bunch of nothing, they are caucusing until 2:30.

2:30: They’re back, Brad has a new plan. Missy is saying it’s another ultimatum offer:

In a nutshell, this takes more from midrange faculty and OA’s, and less from the high income upper admins than the union’s plan. It also leaves the stipend loophole – no tax on car, cellphone, other stipends.

2:45 – Union is caucusing.

4:22 I missed some more, they’re back.

I believe the above is the final agreed on salary cut package – i.e. the “New UO” version. Here is the continuous version:

Find your base salary on the x axis, go up to the yellow line, read your pay cut off the y axis. So if you make $100,000, your salary after cuts will be $100K*(1-0.0629) = $93,710.

These are the maximum cuts, to be imposed if the revenue shortfall is $35M or more.

Half-priced Provost needs a tow.

I drove down to the Glenwood Transfer Station this afternoon to recycle some of my collection of UO Archives. Berdahl & Coltrane stuff – who cares about them now.

Couldn’t restart the Caballero. A helpful mechanic guy who was dropping off a large load of beer cans tried to help me get it going. Gas, compression, but no spark. So I called the tow truck.

A helpful recycling lady – with mask – brought me a cup of water while I waited. “It’s so hot out here, we wanted to make sure you’re OK.”

The guy from Eugene Towing told me he’d done this 5,000 times and not to worry, but this was the first Caballero. “You got that new?”

The rest is up to Joe’s Garage.

Pandemic will save UO $16M – what will JH spend it on?

More precisely, the Oregon Treasurer’s efforts to take advantage of the pandemic-induced fall in interest rates by refinancing university debt will save UO $16M over the next 3 years.

Press release here. The state will save a bunch because they pay for bonds for academic buildings. I think that the university savings, below, are mostly for debt incurred by the universities for dorms and athletics. UO would have saved far more, but, according to what I was told by the former UO Treasurer, whoever wrote the $235M in Knight Arena bonds neglected to include the standard clause making them recallable after 10 years. Meaning we are stuck paying 4% or whatever on them for another 20 years – like a mortgage you’re not allowed to refinance.

Bargaining VIII, this Wed at 3PM

7/22/2020: Liveblog, usual disclaimer: my thoughts on what people are saying, trying to say, trying to be thinking, etc. Nothing is a quote unless in ” ” ‘s.

Matella: We’re OK with the all in employees idea, and a 15-35 window. (That’s a very low threshold. UO has already cut costs more than this.)

Brad Shelton: I realize my initial model was too complicated for some people to understand, so I’ve made it more like the tax code. Also, I updated a lot of information which I haven’t shared with you before now.

(Typo in second to last bullet – $185K should be $285K)

Caucus break.

3:58 They’re back.

Caucus break.

4:53: Admins want another 10 min to caucus.

5:00: Admins want another 15 min to caucus.

5:15: Admins want another 5 min to caucus.

5:20: They’re back. 

Took Brad awhile to turn his crank, but he’s got a new plan to protect the highest paid administrators:

Cecil: It would be helpful if you shared your data, as we shared the data we painfully scrapped from IR’s pdfs because UO won’t post machine readable files and Schill stopped reporting quarterly numbers.

Matella: OK, I think.

Cecil: What to do about TRP? High salary suggests high tax, low FTE suggests low tax. Keaton goes low, Brad goes high. Caucus til 5:45.

They’re back.

Cecil: We’re going to want to trim a little more off the top. We need Brad’s data.

Matella: We’ll get you his model. [Here’s hoping she means data, not model.]

Cecil: We’ve got the outlines of a deal, just need to hammer out parameters of the cuts. Can’t do that until you share Brad’s data.

Cecil: Hope we can get this done this week.

Continue reading

UO PR flack Kay Jarvis caught lying about Covid secrecy

Ken Goe of the Oregonian has a long report on UO’s continued failure to report aggregate data on the characteristics of students who have tested positive, here, and the various excuses they’ve used – which he’s checked up on. Some snippets:

The University of Oregon’s refusal to reveal the number of on-campus Ducks athletes testing positive for the novel coronavirus is raising questions about the school’s transparency and willingness to protect the university community.

While some Pac-12 rivals, including Oregon State and Washington, have divulged an aggregate number of positive tests for athletes, Oregon and others have not. Oregon reports only a total number of students overall who test positive.

As articulated by UO spokeswoman Kay Jarvis, the university’s shifting rationales for this have ranged from contending the release of an aggregate number of athletes to test positive would violate “state and federal privacy laws” to saying the decision was made in consultation with the “local public authority.”

The first contention, according to an attorney familiar with such privacy laws, is false. As for the second, a Lane County health official said it is up to the university to determine what to release.

“There is no trust. Zero,” said Stephanie Prentiss, who represents Oregon’s classified employees as president of the school’s chapter of the Service Employees International Union.

Prentiss said university employees have been given conflicting information from administrators about athletes who have tested positive for the coronavirus and are being quarantined on campus.

She said workers cleaning areas on campus where infected people are being isolated are inadequately trained and equipped to do that job in the midst of the pandemic. The lack of transparency and specificity, she said, has led to uneasiness and fear among university workers.

The school has designated Jarvis, Oregon’s director of public affairs and issues management, to answer questions about this policy and has declined to make others available, including UO’s general counsel.

When first asked why Oregon was refusing to release the number of positive tests among its athletes, Jarvis responded in a June 23 email by saying she could not release that information because of state and federal privacy laws.

Attorney Gunita Singh, legal fellow with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called that rationale “absurd. It’s a classic over application of privacy laws.”

On July 10, Jarvis wrote the school is consulting closely with Lane County Health & Human Services to slow the spread of the virus and in contact tracing.

“Again, the university is not the one determining the health benefit of information released,” she wrote. “We work with the local public health authority to determine when and how that information should be released, such as if there is an outbreak or when they are unable to use contact tracing to limit the spread.”

Jason Davis of Lane County Health & Human Services confirmed the university has cooperated fully with the county.

But, he said, Lane County Health does not have a position about what UO should disclose to the greater community unless there would be an instance when “five or more athletes start to get sick, and they all seem to be getting sick from the same source or reservoir. That needs to be addressed in public.”

Otherwise, Davis said, it’s up to the school to decide what it chooses to tell the community. …

Meanwhile, 19 days and UO GC Kevin Reed’s office still can’t figure out what to tell Bloomberg News: