NOTE: Thumbs up/down on comments has been disabled due to misuse by PR Flack supporters. Sorry!
No recent comment found.
TagsAAUP-AFT Union? Academic Freedom administrative bloat Athletics athletics subsidy Beangrams Coronavirus Dana Altman Dave Frohnmayer: UO President Diversity Faculty pay Faculty Union (United Academics of UO) free speech Jamie Moffitt Jim Bean: UO Provost Jim O'Fallon jock box Lariviere Firing Lorraine Davis March 8-9 rape allegations Melinda Grier Michael Gottfredson NCAA NCAA violations new partnership plan off topic OUS Board and Chancellor Pernsteiner PERS Public Records Public Safety Randy Geller General Counsel Research money Richard Lariviere: UO President Rob Mullens Scott Coltrane Senate Sharon Rudnick Tim Gleason Track and Field Championships Uncategorized UO Foundation UO Presidential Archives UO restructuring plan UO Trustees
- State gives $800M for raises & engineering in exchange for university freezing diversity positions 12/09/2023
- Provost Woodruff-Borden wants faculty to dumb down courses now, in prep for possible Grad strike 12/07/2023
- President Scholz’s minders won’t let him talk to student reporters 12/06/2023
- Economist to bring Trustees up to date on UO’s continued decline relative to AAU 12/04/2023
- UO Strategic Communicators to piss away more money on brand awareness 12/04/2023
- Pres Scholz takes bold action to improve the life of UO’s diverse employees 12/04/2023
- Rob Mullens and Duck sports bring more international recognition to UO 12/02/2023
- Departing Provost was terrific colleague to boss, showed him many kindnesses 11/28/2023
- Pres Schill’s new university digs into sordid Duck Athletics history 11/16/2023
- Pres Scholz responds to GE’s credible strike threat with offer to match AAU average for minimum starting pay. 11/10/2023
- How many students does UO have this year? 11/08/2023
- Grad Student union members vote 97% for strike authorization 11/06/2023
- Why is President Scholz lowballing our grad students? 10/26/2023
- Prez Scholz announces a new vision plan with the same old buzz words 10/25/2023
- Secretive Academic Council brings Academic Continuity Plan for GTFF strike to Senate 10/25/2023
- Search for Real Provost begins 10/24/2023
- UO Strategic Communications issues RFP for Fragrance Branding Campaign 10/21/2023
- Prez Scholz thinks another $350K for VP Alex-Assensoh will improve campus climate? 10/20/2023
- UO hires new chief brander and PR flack from UVA 10/19/2023
- UO Admin to deduct 3’55” from faculty paychecks for October’s annular eclipse 10/17/2023
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 10
6 Preamble. It is recognized that, given the diverse nature of faculty work, the varying
7 types of faculty appointments and the needs of the departments and academic units, the
8 weighting of assignments and the particulars of individual assignments will vary both
9 between and within individual departments and academic units.
11 Section 1. For most faculty, workload consists of some combination of instructional
12 activities (including class preparation, classroom teaching, evaluation of student work,
13 advising and mentoring, and various forms of communication with students); research,
14 scholarship, creative activity; and service, within the department, school or college, and
15 university, and outside the university.
17 Section 2. All departments and programs must have a faculty-approved policy that
18 defines workload expectations for all academic ranks employed by the department or
19 program. While faculty shall have the flexibility to design a policy that fits their
20 particular department, no policy can violate the university-valued principles of
21 transparency, fairness, equality, and participation. Such policies should recognize
22 differences in research methodology and results, as well as course type, size, and
23 pedagogy. These differences should be taken into account in setting workload
26 Section 3. The workload policy shall define a 1.0 FTE workload for all academic
27 instructional ranks (including tenure-related ranks, career NNT instructors and lecturers,
28 and adjunct instructors) employed by the department or program and shall address how
29 each of the following items contribute to the overall FTE. For non-instructional ranks or
30 where tenure-related or non-tenure track faculty are not primarily instructional, specific
31 job descriptions should be developed to address the particular workload of the faculty
32 member. Instructional faculty workloads will, in general, address the following:
34 a) Course load (including courses and student credit hours, both regular offerings,
35 irregular offerings including, for example, FIGS, 1-credit course, and independent
36 study credits). If different course types are “weighted” differently, then
37 equivalences should be specified as well (e.g., if a large class is “worth” the
38 equivalent to 1.5 regular offerings)
39 b) Service expectations (including internal and external service expectations, not
40 including graduate advising). Service expectations should recognize different
41 types of service commitments (e.g. “weighing” FAC, FPC, DAC, and department
42 and program management functions service as “more” than less time consuming
43 committee assignments)2 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 c) Research, scholarship, creative activity
2 d) Professional development expectations related to teaching or service
3 e) Undergraduate and graduate advising expectations
4 f) Office hours and communication expectations
5 g) Course release policy
7 Workload policies should also describe a fair and transparent process for accounting for
8 individual faculty needs when assigning workload. Factors to consider include but are
9 not limited to:
11 a) Number of new course preparations
12 b) Balance of workload components based on faculty review, promotion and tenure,
13 professional development expectations and research agenda
14 c) Extra administrative duties
15 d) Timing of activities (e.g., publication and grant deadlines, course load in given
16 terms, and promotion review dates)
18 Given the complexities of faculty work, it is expected that workload policies will not just
19 describe workload as the number of courses taught per term/year without clear processes
20 for accounting for the many differences in activities and faculty needs. Workload policies
21 should also reflect the importance of service, including administrative duties.
23 Section 4. An individual’s particular workload shall be assigned with the expectation that
24 the faculty member will have the opportunity to meet the criteria for all reviews,
25 including promotion and tenure. Assignments shall reflect
27 a) The academic needs of the department or program
28 b) The faculty member’s qualifications and expertise
29 c) The faculty member’s evolving professional interests
30 d) The best practices in the field
32 Department heads or program directors shall be responsible for the scheduling and
33 assignment of all faculty under their direction. In units where there is no department
34 head, the dean or designee will be responsible for the scheduling and assignment of all
35 faculty under his or her direction. The department head or dean will maintain annually a
36 written record of assignments for each faculty member after consultation with the faculty
37 member. Consultation will take place no later than in the Spring term for the coming
38 academic year and will include a discussion of schedule as well as other assignments.
39 The faculty member shall be afforded the opportunity to present his or her preferences
40 regarding assignments before they are assigned.
413 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 A department head, program director, or dean may modify scheduled assignments,
2 provided that the department head discuss changes with the faculty member before they
3 are made and changes are not made for arbitrary or capricious reasons.
5 Faculty members may request to adjust workload scheduled or assignments.
7 Any administrative stipends or academic support resources associated with work
8 assignments must be awarded in accordance with a clearly stated policy that does not
9 violate the university-valued principles of transparency, fairness, equality, and
12 Section 5. Overload compensation is any compensation, other than an administrative
13 stipend, paid to a faculty member who is assigned work beyond that specified in the
14 workload policy.
16 The following activities are typical sources of overload compensation:
17 a) continuing education
18 b) extension service
19 c) intra-campus consulting
20 d) seminars and similar services
21 e) advising more students than listed in the workload policy
22 f) teaching classes above the number defined as workload expectation at 1.0 FTE in
23 departmental policy
25 Section 6. Regular on-campus classes as well as time spent in support of grant and
26 research activities shall not be allowable activities for overload compensation except
27 under extraordinary or emergency circumstances.
29 Section 7. Overload assignments may only be used in emergency situations. Departments
30 and programs are obligated to employ sufficient faculty to perform all expected work
31 within the department. No faculty member can be disciplined or terminated for refusing
32 an overload assignment.
34 Section 8. Overload appointments will be assigned an FTE percentage commensurate
35 with normal workload duties and compensated accordingly. Faculty may request that
36 overload compensation take the form of class release.
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 4
4 PAST PRACTICES
6 Section 1. All practices and policies concerning terms and conditions of employment,
7 including all policies, resolutions, and legislation approved by the University Senate, in
8 effect on the date this Agreement is executed which affect faculty shall be maintained for
9 the period of this Agreement, unless modified by this Agreement or by mutual consent.
11 Section 2. Any ambiguities between past practices, as herein defined, and other Articles
12 of this Agreement shall be resolved in favor of such other Articles.
14 Section 3. In the event that the Administration grants an increase in benefits to any
15 employees not covered by this agreement, such increase shall be provided to faculty as
16 well. There shall be no reduction in benefits during the term of this Agreement.
1 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
3 ARTICLE 3
4 SHARED GOVERNANCE
7 Oregon state law, the University of Oregon’s original Charter and Constitution, as well as
8 long-established practice recognize the vital role of shared governance between the
9 University Senate and the Administration, both in setting priorities and making policy on
10 academic matters and as a guarantee of the freedom upon which excellence in higher
11 education depends. Although United Academics, as the elected and certified bargaining
12 agent, retains the exclusive right to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of
13 employment for members of the bargaining unit, the parties recognize the necessity of a
14 collegial governance system for faculty and of the University Senate’s authority to
15 legislate in matters of academic concern. It is mutually desirable that the collegial system
16 of governance, as established in the Constitution of December 15, 2011, be maintained
17 and strengthened so that faculty will have a mechanism and procedure, independent of
18 the collective bargaining process, for legislating in all academic matters.
20 Section 1. The faculty, acting through the University Senate, Senate Committees, unit
21 committees, and in accordance with the UO Constitution, Senate Bylaws, and the
22 University Senate Policy on Policies is responsible for the review and establishment of
23 policy in issues that relate to academic matters as commonly understood in higher
24 education, as specified in the University Senate Constitution and Bylaws, subject to the
25 approval processes therein specified. These issues include, but are not limited to:
26 a. all curricular matters, including the course of study, materials used, class size,
27 and establishment, dissolution and substantial changes of degree programs
28 b. admissions standards and prerequisites
29 c. research and scholarship
30 d. requirements for regular certificates and degrees
31 e. regulations regarding attendance, examinations, grading, evaluation student of
32 performance, scholastic standing and honors
33 f. teaching methods and quality
34 g. professional standards and criteria for positions accorded academic rank
35 h. other academic matters referred to it by the Board of Higher Education, the
36 university administration, the faculty of a school, college, department, Extension
37 or the Libraries or other members of the university community
38 i. approval of the academic calendar prepared by the Registrar
39 j. unit committees
40 k. the regulations concerning and the awarding of honorary degrees
42 Section 2. The faculty, acting through the University Senate and Senate Committees, unit
43 committees, and in accordance with the UO Constitution, Senate Bylaws, and the 2 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 University Senate Policy on Policies shall review, recommend, and participate in the
2 formulation of all other policy relating to matters of concern to the university community
3 including, but not limited to:
4 a. institutional priorities
5 b. the allocation and utilization of the university’s human, fiscal and physical
7 c. academic organization, including the establishment or elimination of colleges
8 and departments and the reorganization of the general university and college
9 academic structure
10 d. admissions procedures and quotas
11 e.. student financial aid and tuition
12 f.. the library, the academic computing center, instrumentation and model
13 facilities, audiovisual center, university bookstore, the museum, supporting
14 services, etc. as they affect scholarly activities and research
15 g. administrative procedures and organizational structures
16 h.. the appointment, review, and promotion of academic and policy-level
17 administrative officers, including all those at the budget management level whose
18 functions are university-wide
19 i. the selection of the President of the University, Provost and Vice Presidents
20 whenever those offices become vacant or are created
21 j. donations of money and other resources to the university
22 k. the distribution of unrestricted funds made available to the university for
23 discretionary allocation in support of research or scholarly work
25 Section 3. Departments or other traditional governance structures (unit) shall have an
26 active and significant role in academic matters as defined in Sections 1 and 2 of this
27 Article. The faculties of the colleges and departments shall make their own constitutions
28 and bylaws by which to conduct their respective governance responsibilities. Such
29 bylaws shall be subject to review and approval by appropriate dean or Vice President.
31 (a) The faculty members of each department/unit, by majority vote, shall establish
32 bylaws, which must pass Administrative review. Governance in the
33 departments/units shall be conducted in accordance with their respective bylaws,
34 which shall be filed with the appropriate academic administrators and posted on
35 the department/unit web sites.
37 (b) The bylaws of each department/unit shall include procedures for faculty
38 members to share significantly in unit-related governance responsibilities as
39 defined in Sections 1 and 2 of this Article, including but not limited to program
40 review; department/unit review; department/unit reorganization; development of
41 criteria for tenure, promotion, and merit salary increases; curricular matters
42 including class sizes, courses of study, major/minor/certificate requirements;
43 selection of department heads and/or chairs and certain other academic 3 December 13 and 14, 2012
1 administrators; procedures for amending bylaws; charges, powers and
2 responsibilities of governance committees; make-up of committees, including
3 numbers of TTF, NTTF, students, administrators, and others where appropriate;
4 process for electing committee members; clear guidelines that delineate what
5 matters committees can decide on and what matters require full-faculty vote;
6 procedures for faculty voting; and other matters of professional concern.
8 Nothing in this Article shall be construed as abridging traditional rights of self-
9 governance of departments/units, to the extent those rights are exercised in accordance
10 with the statutes and policies of the university and with this Agreement.
12 Section 4. No faculty member will be subject to discrimination, discipline or termination
13 resulting from participation in the system of shared governance.
Note – not yet active!
UNITED ACADEMICS PROPOSAL
5 This Agreement, entered into as of the date of ratification, is between the State of
6 Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon State Board of Higher Education on behalf of
7 the University of Oregon, herein referred to as Administration, and United Academics,
8 American Association of University Professors – American Federation of Teachers, AFL-
9 CIO, herein referred to as Union.
10 The intent and purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that working conditions allow all
11 faculty to pursue excellence and innovation in education, research and service at the
12 University of Oregon and both to uphold the mission of the University of Oregon and
13 strengthen civil society through a vibrant system of public education. The parties
14 recognize that good faith collective bargaining is a means of achieving this purpose and
15 that such collaboration will contribute to the interests of the University of Oregon.
12/20/2015 – to be updated.
The promise of $40M in Oregon public money to support IAAF championship:
Video of Lananna and Track Town supporters making their bid presentation for 2019 to Lamine Diack and the IAAF. Kitzhaber promising “as much as $40M dollars to support your championships”:
Some emails regarding that promise:
UO’s Hans Bernhard forwarding Kitzhaber’s updated letter for the 2015 bid package:
The letter: 2.6.15_Diack
UO’s Hans Bernhard’s presentation to the UO Board of Trustees, pledging that *UO* will make getting this $40M for a track meet one of it’s highest legislative priorities for the Oregon legislative session that starts 2/1/2016. The claim is that this will not be a trade-off for money to support UO’s academic side. Sure it won’t:
UO Foundation CEO Paul Weinhold pledging his foundation will make good any shortfalls:
Boston mayor bails on Olympic bid after reporters uncover similar shenanigans:
“This is a commitment I cannot make without assurances that Boston and its residents will be protected,” Walsh said. “I refuse to mortgage the future of the city away. I refuse to put Boston on the hook for overruns. And I refuse to commit to signing a guarantee that uses taxpayer dollars to pay for the Olympics.”
Some misc pdfs:
While UO can’t find room to house its new students, classrooms to teach them in, or offices for the faculty, UO’s VP for Finance Frances Dyke recently made the tough call to spend $2.4 million renovating and remodeling administrative suites in Johnson Hall. Where do you think her office is?
Money quote: “Funding was set aside from the Capital Repair budget that I manage for these repairs.” So where did the rest of the $2.4 million come from?
From: Frances Dyke
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: Johnson Hall Projects
Here is the information you requested on the Johnson Hall renovations as summarized by the project managers. Just a few notes to help you decipher this: Suite 3 is on the west side of the ground floor. Suite 7 is on the east side of the ground floor. One thing that is not mentioned in the narrative below is that the bathroom renovation on the south side of the second floor upgraded a bathroom to meet accessibility standards. Until this project was finished the only accessible bathroom was on the ground level.
We have been working on 7 different projects in Johnson Hall over the last year.
The initial project was a heating system renovation, as the system in the building was failing, terribly inefficient, and ineffective. A study was done regarding this project 4 years ago. Funding was set aside from the Capital Repair budget that I manage for these repairs.
The project was defined as a two-phase project. The first being the basement, the second phase included the top two floors. These were set up as two separate contracts as initially the timing for these projects was conceived to be a year apart. They ended up being separated by less time as the second-floor renovation occurred which made it far more cost-effective to incorporate the timing of the HVAC upgrade at the same time as the second-floor renovation so no newly replaced finishes would be damaged with the addition of a new heating system which will now be enrolled in a UHVAC services program to prevent long-term maintenance issues. It took a major coordination effort on the part of a couple of my project managers, but it worked out very well.
The second floor renovation project was driven by a need to more efficiently layout the second floor, and re-organize it to fit the structure of the departments that were located on that floor. This project incorporated all of our current sustainable practices in lighting, finishes, HVAC controls, etc.
The Suite 3 and Suite 7 renovations were requested by different departments to better organize their spaces, which enabled the creation of new work stations. These new work stations are more private as well and a step forward in our attempt to stop identity theft in the workplace. This work was undertaken while the space was empty for the HVAC renovation. Again this created the opportunity for efficiency based upon the fact that there was not an additional loss of productivity for another departmental move. As well, we had put significant effort into coordinating multiple commercial contractors in this space to create the most cost effective renovation effort possible. Some of the work in this area ended up being completed slower than was desired due to some delays in the design and permitting process.
While we had a large portion of the building affected by the construction we installed a fire sprinkler system in the building. Johnson Hall has been high on the priority list for a long time. As it holds many critical records for the campus, it has long needed this system installed. We were able to install this system within the building without creating a significant increased impact to the users.
We also made a modification to the telecommunication closet within the building. This was an issue that was partially brought on by a necessary relocation driven by the second floor project, the other was that the existing closet was far below the standards of other campus systems so the opportunity was taken by the telecommunication department to upgrade the system to current standards.
The funding for the projects is as indicated below.
Basement HVAC Replacement Project (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 800,000
Current Expenditures $ 694,489
Projected Costs $ 716,111
1st and 2nd Floor HVAC Replacement Project (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 511,000
Current Expenditures $ 431,438
Projected Costs $ 445,098
2nd Floor Renovation Project
Project Budget $ 799,015
Current Expenditures $ 623,885
Projected Costs $ 704,265
Suite 3 Renovation
Project Budget $ 134,280
Current Expenditures $ 92,934
Projected Costs $ 115,477
Suite 7 Renovation
Project Budget $ 98,645
Current Expenditures $ 70,244
Projected Costs $ 90,957
Fire Sprinkler Installation/Alarm Upgrade (Cap Repair)
Project Budget $ 310,000
Current Expenditures $ 170,504
Projected Costs $ 218,952
Telecommunication Closet Upgrade
Project Budget $ 135,000
Current Expenditures $ 116,100
Projected Costs $ 128,691
Frances L. Dyke
CFO and Vice President for Finance and Administration