Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Uncategorized”

UO puts bike violators on $1 an hour Bicycle Safety Patrol chain gang

And you thought the Code of Ethics was silly. How does this sort of thing get through Chuck Triplett’s office? I’m beginning to think that his policy realignment efforts may not be entirely reliable: Technical revisions enacted by the University Secretary on September 3, 2015: E. Bicycle Penalties, Citations, and Fines (1) Any…

Ombud Bruce McAllister’s open letter on departure dispels rumors

11/29/2015: Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister has sent an open letter reviewing the history of the Ombuds program, giving some information on his (considerable) accomplishments at UO over the past 2 years, and giving suggestions for what should be done next to maintain and strengthen the Ombuds program.

This letter should dispel the rumors (see the comments on this post) that his resignation was tied to lack of general support from JH or a disagreement over a specific case. The pdf is here, I’m cutting and pasting the entire text below.

Now if only Chief Internal Auditor Brenda Muirhead would provide an explanation for her resignation!

From UO Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister,  

To the members of the University Community:

I’d like to express my gratitude to the University community for allowing me the
incredible opportunity to serve as the University of Oregon’s inaugural
ombudsperson. The last two years have been a wonderful experience and it has
been exciting to design and implement the University’s new Ombuds program.

As most of you now know, I am leaving the University of Oregon to pursue some
exciting new career opportunities. This new career direction allows great
flexibility and challenge and allows me to share my experience and expertise with
a number of world-class organizations. I want to emphasize that my decision to
leave the University was completely my own and was driven by complex personal
and professional life and career considerations. While serving as the UO
Ombudsperson, I have received great support from the University community. I
have had the opportunity to work with the University’s administration and with
three University presidents, each of whom have been extremely accessible and
with whom I have felt a cordial and supportive relationship.

Most important, I have had the pleasure of working with nearly 300 individual
visitors who sought my help as the University Ombudsperson. In addition, I
worked with nearly 200 other members of the campus community in various
group situations, including group conflict resolution sessions; organizational
assessment efforts, in which the root causes of chronic conflict were identified
and collectively addressed; and in other organizational development initiatives,
designed to optimize departments and reduce conflict potential. As a part of
Ombuds Program implementation, I worked with an additional 50 key program
leaders such as program directors for sexual assault advocacy, domestic violence
intervention, student conduct, counseling, medical support, emergency response,
and others. Finally, it was a great pleasure to serve on the University Senate’s
Task Force To Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support, as an ex officio
member. The contributions of this group have already shown lasting value and
positive impact within the campus community.

Recently, the University made a commitment to permanent space for the Ombuds
Office, and we completed plans for an outstanding new location for the program. I
worked personally with the University’s designers to ensure that the new space
will meet the needs for a highly accessible, yet highly confidential facility. I have
been assured by the President’s Office, that the plan is still in place for the
Ombuds Office move, which should hopefully be complete by sometime in Spring
Term.

In addition to assuring that the physical space requirements meet the highest
standards, we worked to ensure that all of the infrastructure and systems related
to operating the ombuds program are based on the highest standards of practice.
Elements of this effort include the recently implemented custom case tracking
system, which now enables us to seamlessly track our commitments to visitors
and to archive non-sensitive information. The Ombuds Program web site,
emergency response procedures, confidentiality agreements (for staff), and all
other program documentation, systems, and processes are now in place.

As a result of intensive work during the implementation phase for the program,
the University of Oregon is now among the leading universities in the country
with respect to its ombuds program’s clear status as a confidential resource for
students and employees who encounter a sexual harassment or assault situation.
Thanks to the contribution of our late former President, David Frohnmayer, in
conducting an independent legal review, the support of Interim President Scott
Coltrane, and the staff support of the University General Counsel’s Office, the
University of Oregon Board of Trustees passed a very expressly worded policy
statement that identifies the University Ombuds as a confidential resource for
employees and students. While some have speculated that I was not in support of
an approach that required the additional steps of an independent legal review,
the idea was actually mine and I fully supported this approach as a way to ensure
that the decision to identify the Ombuds Program as a highly confidential
resource was a durable one and not dependent on the fiat of a single University
official.

The University Ombuds Program is now nearly fully implemented with one
notable exception. Since January of 2015, I have endeavored to work with the
administration to finalize the Ombuds Program Charter. The charter documents
and memorializes the University’s commitment to the independence,
confidentiality, and neutrality of its ombuds program. Virtually all university
ombuds programs include such a document and benchmarks are readily available
for comparison to the draft that I have developed for the University of Oregon. I
would urge the University Senate and larger campus community to be zealous in
its insistence that the Ombuds Program function to a fully endorsed charter, as
the charter is critical to formalizing the ground rules and working commitments
to your ombuds program. The existence of a charter will help your Ombuds
Program weather transitions in administrations and boards and protects your
Ombudsperson from retaliation for bringing uncomfortable truths to the
attention of your administration.

I would also urge the university community to be actively engaged in the
screening and selection process for your new lead ombudsperson. Having served
in both the position of a large agency general counsel and a large organizations
ombuds, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the role of the
ombudsperson in a large complex campus is no less critical than that of your
General Counsel. The ability to identify potential issues and to effectively place
them on the screen of campus administration is a major element of the program’s
value. Thus, I urge you to place great energy into identifying a successor to the
position with the skills-set appropriate to the challenges and of the gravitas to be
effective and influential.

I leave the University with some sense of sadness in that I had originally
envisioned remaining at the helm of your program for some time yet. However, a
combination of professional and personal circumstances required more
immediate action. I want to acknowledge the outstanding support of the
University Senate and the campus community in general for helping me to gain
familiarity with the campus and to launch your program. I also greatly appreciate
the support of the University Board of Trustees, the current and former
University Presidents, Provosts, and many excellent key staff, such as the deans
and staff within the various colleges, members of HR, Student Life, and in the staff
attorneys in University Counsel’s Office. With the help of these many people and
others, we have launched a nationally recognized and sustainable ombuds
program, which already serves as a benchmark to other higher education
institutions. I am very proud of what we have accomplished together in a
relatively short time.

While I am leaving the University, I am not leaving the ombuds or higher
education communities and I will remain an active and engaged resource. I am
committed to the success of the University and its Ombuds Program and will
remain completely accessible for advice or for background information. I invite
any member of the campus community to reach out to me in the future should
the need arise. The staff of the Ombuds Office will have my contact information.

Sincerely,
Bruce MacAllister

University of Oregon Ombudsperson

Update: It’s so: Ombud Bruce MacAllister to leave UO

Washington Post calls for controls on big-time athletic pork

Columnist Sally Jenkins, here: … For years, athletic directors have styled themselves as CEO-types and moaned about the difficulties of managing costs. But a Washington Post project published earlier this week shows that these so-called executives are about as fiscally responsible as Gabor sisters serving sevruga in chinchilla capes. The truth…

UO Code of Ethics requires employees to “dedicate ourselves before God to our chosen profession”, plus civility

11/28/2015: From what I can tell $130K VP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett is actually going to bring his UO ethics policy to the Senate for debate and vote.

You must “make decisions based upon the greater good” and act in “wise, ethical, and prudent manner”, while not “shifting blame or taking improper credit”. And the administration thinks the *Senate* is wasting faculty time with pointless discussions?

I’ve already seen some pretty good suggestions for amendments, including the admirably brief

“University of Oregon Code of Ethics: All employees must follow the University of Oregon Policy on Freedom of Speech and Inquiry“.

If that fails, I’ll bring up my proposal for a Senate Unethical Activities Committee, with the power to investigate and blacklist offenders:

Meanwhile, rumor down at the Faculty Club Chapel (Episcopalian) is that there will also be questions from the faculty on how we can behave ethically without dedicating ourselves before God to our chosen profession, as VPFA Jamie Moffitt has been requiring the UO Police to do, ever since that unfortunate Bowl of Dicks incident:

Screen Shot 2015-11-28 at 8.01.40 PM

Good thing our Johnson Hall bowl game junketeers aren’t sworn officers. That part about “never accepting gratuities” would be a problem.

As for the God business, sorry, but a higher authority disagrees: “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

11/13/2015: UO ethics policy requires “civil, respectful, and nurturing environment”

And if you fail to “make decisions based upon the greater good” or don’t act in “a wise, ethical, and prudent manner” or if you engage in “shifting blame or taking improper credit”, you have violated UO policy, and you are subject to university discipline.

That’s according to UO’s newly revised “Code of Ethics” policy, posted on VP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett’s website, and open for comment here.

Moffitt still stalling on Police oversight, UO wants $1600 for docs

11/28/2015: It’s been several years since UO promised to establish some sort of police oversight committee. John Ahlen and Juan Carlos Valle had an excellent Op-Ed in the RG in June, here:

Mistake No. 1: A healthy police oversight system contains two components missing from the UOPD model — a civilian review that has some teeth to it, and a professional independent auditing body. We’ve seen that a body of community members is being recommended to review certain allegations at the UO, but this is inadequate. They are advisory only and have no authority.

Our understanding is that only one person outside the UOPD, an administrative vice president, a position not expected to have experience administering a police department, has the authority to make changes or require additional investigation.

Mistake No. 2: Certainly it is not a good sign that there have already been UOPD misconduct cases under their watch that have already been overturned. Seeing the UOPD’s response to the “bowl of expletives” controversy — in which officers maintained a supposedly humorous list of enemies — didn’t give us much faith that they would be able to police themselves, as the underlying message seemed to be that boys will be boys. A professional, independent auditor is the way to make sure that allegations of misconduct are properly investigated.

Having an effective oversight system is not difficult at all for the city of Eugene, so why is it so challenging for UOPD?

Mistake No. 3: Of greatest concern is the question of why this wasn’t all sorted out before the department bought guns and was granted the authority to use them. The rush to become a police department before analyzing the new use of force policies in place (which were literally cut and pasted from a California policy company handbook) creates liability for the UO.

VPFA Jamie Moffitt has been promising to set up a review committee for years. Noah Mcgraw has the scoop on the latest delays in the Emerald, here. Some people think this committee’s workings should be transparent:

Helena Schlegel, ASUO President, disapproves of the CRC’s format. Schlegel is asking the university to “make their review panel representative of the community and its meetings and decisions transparent to the public.”

“The ASUO currently has no say in either UOPD policy or its internal reviews. We welcome the opportunity to participate meaningfully in police oversight and transparency issues on and off campus,” Schlegel said.

But UO’s Public Records Office thinks it’s not in the public’s interest to know, unless you’ve got $1600:

On WednesdayAug 5, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Thornton, Lisa <[email protected]> wrote:

08/05/2015

Dear Mr. Harbaugh: 

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “copies of any ‘minutes, agendas, reports, and correspondence’ involving ‘boards and councils that function in an advisory capacity, standing and ad hoc committees and councils’ that primarily involve the UOPD. This request covers the period from 1/1/2011 to the present” on 06/24/2015, attached. The office has at least some documents responsive to your request.  By this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests.

The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $1,660.68. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon for that amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure.  Your check may be sent to the attention of Office of Public Records, 6207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-6207.

10/22/2015: UO Campus Cops Lack Oversight

Lord Coe quits Nike, French cops investigating Track Town bid

11/26/2015: 

The BBC has the latest from the IAAF headquarters – in Monaco, of course. Apparently the IAAF will replace his Nike money by paying Coe a salary, in an effort to reduce the IAAF’s longstanding system of bribes, kickbacks, and side deals:

Screen Shot 2015-11-26 at 11.46.34 AM

The British press is now asking why public money was spent on lobbying the IAAF members to elect Coe. And British MP Damian Colin’s parliamentary hearings will be on Dec 2. Report here:

CNN reports on UO retaliation, will air Hunting Ground despite libel threat

Back in the day, Dave Frohnmayer could make sure that even the local press wouldn’t cover stories about UO’s retaliation against its employees. For example, Joe Wade’s discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, which forced Frohnmayer and John Moseley to pay $500K and create what is now UO’s VP for Equity and Inclusion. I think that got…