Tag Archives: Kevin Reed

Trump caves on Int’l students the day after UO files lawsuit

By | |
6 Comments

7/14/2020 update: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/07/14/trump-administration-drops-directive-international-students-and-online-courses

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security rescinded a July 6 policy directive that would have required international students to take at least some in-person college coursework in order to remain in the U.S.

The government agreed to rescind the guidance to resolve a lawsuit filed by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The rescinding of the directive, and an associated FAQ released on July 7, means the government reverts back to a March guidance that allowed international students to remain in the U.S. while taking a fully online course load. …

7/13/2020: GC Kevin Reed hires outside lawyers to sue Homeland Security

The docket and complaint are here, courtesy of the Free Law Project. I’m no law professor but much of this seems to be cribbed from the Harvard and MIT complaint filed last week, here. Presumably Ted Olson – a founding member of the Federalist Society – and his firm are giving us a discount:

Continue reading →

UO Foundation spends $13.5M on deadwood coaches – and GC Kevin Reed’s office continues to delay releasing public records

By | |
8 Comments

Severance payments to former coaches, from 2015 to present:

Presumably the money came from Duck boosters who couldn’t think of a way to support UO’s academic mission, or just don’t care. I wonder if the Foundation and UO Development exempted these donations from their usual administrative and fundraising charges, as they do for most big Duck boosters.

This is from a public records request I made at 10:40 AM on May 11, below. As you can see from the time stamp on the banner report, it took AAD Eric Roedl’s staff less than 5 hours to get around to pulling these records out of banner (which takes less than 5 minutes). UO General Counsel Kevin Reed’s Public Records Office then applied its usual methods to delay the release of public records to the public and subvert the clear intent of Oregon’s public records law, taking a full 22 days to get around to redacting the id numbers and sending me a fuzzy pdf. The full dump with monthly payments is here.

May 11, 2020 request:

From: Bill Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Subject: Public records request, Duck severance payments
Date: May 11, 2020 at 10:40:25 AM PDT
To: Lisa Thornton <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Roedl <[email protected]>

Dear Ms Thornton

This is a public records request for an itemized list of the “severance payments and applicable benefits” paid to past Duck Athletics coaches and administrative personnel, from July 1 2015 to the present. I attach an example of the sorts of expenses I am looking for, from the 2019 EADA report.

I am ccing Eric Roedl, as he should be able to easily supply these numbers from BANNER without your office’s usual fees and delays.

I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of expenditure of public funds.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
[email protected]

June 2, 2020 response:

On Jun 2, 2020, at 3:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Dear Mr. Harbaugh,

Attached are the records responsive to your request made on 05/11/2020. Some information is exempt under ORS 192.355(2). You may seek review of the public body’s determination pursuant to ORS 192.411, 192.415, 192.418, 192.422, 192.427 and 192.431. The office considers these documents to be fully responsive to your request, and will now close your matter. Thank you for contacting the office with your request.

Sincerely,

Office of Public Records
6207 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403-6207
(541) 346-6823 | [email protected]
publicrecords.uoregon.edu

Daniel Libit posts podcast with UOM, despite GC Kevin Reed threat

By | |
6 Comments

Daniel Libit has won many public records lawsuits against the athletic department at the University of New Mexico, his alma mater, trying to bring some light to their various athletics scandals. He’s recently gone national at “The Intercollegiate”, and asked me to do a podcast about my muckraking experiences with Duck athletics. I’d never even listened to a podcast so of course I said yes, and this is the result:

During the recording of this Daniel asked me about the time – reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education – when UO GC Kevin Reed made this public records request:

From: Kevin Reed <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public Records – Request for Documents 2017-PRR-172
Date: February 3, 2017 at 3:04:14 PM PST
To: William Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Cc: Public Record Requests <[email protected]>

Senate President Harbaugh:

In answer to your questions:

1) I seek all communications concerning or mentioning the STC you made in your capacity as an officer of the University Senate (Vice President, President or member or Chair of the STC), regardless of which media or device you sued for your communication.
2) No. I do not believe FIRE or SPLC qualify as “media.” If it helps in narrowing the search, please feel free to limit my request to communications with reporters, editors or other personnel associated with the Register Guard, the Oregonian, the Daily Emerald, The Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Ed.

But, given that you have shared that you correspond with FIRE, I will make the additional request under the Oregon Public Records Law:

Please share any communications you have had with persons associated with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in the past 12 months, made in your capacity as an officer of the University Senate or member of any of its committees, which communications relate to or concern freedom of speech or academic freedom at the University of Oregon.

Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226
(541) 346-3082 | [email protected]

(Yes, of course I sent him the records, at no charge, and then I sent his emails to the reporters. They laughed and then reported on it, as reporters will do.)

I told Daniel that I thought Kevin’s records request – which he clearly made as UO General Counsel, twice – was “illegal”. I’m no lawyer, but that seems like a reasonable conclusion given that the first page of the free online Oregon Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual says:

I. PUBLIC RECORDS A. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS?

Under Oregon’s Public Records Law, “every person” has a right to inspect any nonexempt public record of a public body in Oregon. This right extends to any natural person, any corporation, partnership, firm or association, and any member or committee of the Legislative Assembly. However, a public body may not use the Public Records Law to obtain public records from another public body. Similarly, a public official, other than a legislator, acting within an official capacity may not rely on the Public Records Law to obtain records, although the individual could do so in an individual capacity. This does not prevent a public body from sharing records with other public bodies; it merely prevents a public body from using Public Records Law as a mechanism to obtain the desired records. [emphasis added] …

Sensibly, Daniel reached out to General Counsel Kevin Reed for his thoughts on this before including my comment in his podcast. Reed strenuously objected to my opinion of his public records request:

On Jan 13, 2020, at 4:59 PM, Kevin Reed <[email protected]> wrote:

Daniel:

I say that the use of the word “illegal” is an absurd stretch, not that the AG’s position (which I took 10 years ago) is absurd.  Please don’t misquote me.

And saying that a lawyer has broken the law is not subject to “interpretation.”  If your publication has counsel, I suggest you check with them.  If you choose to defame me in your publication, you do so at your own peril.

Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226

(541) 346-3082 | [email protected]

generalcounsel.uoregon.edu

“Your own peril”. Yikes.

So, I want to thank Daniel for deciding to redact my comments on Kevin’s public records  request from the podcast, and saving me the trouble of having to deal with still more peril from UO’s General Counsel.

Full email exchanges between Reed and Libit below the break. Poorly formatted, sorry.

Continue reading →

Faculty Club survives, despite Kevin Reed’s best efforts

By | |
3 Comments

Dear Colleagues,

The Faculty Club opens its doors for the fall term again this week.  We’ll be following the same format as before—a happy hour with complimentary hors-d’oeuvres and a reasonably-priced cash bar, open from 5:00 to 8:00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Please come out and join us either day, or both days.  The crowd is cheerful and smart, and colleagues are bound to have great stories to share about their summer adventures.  And you never know who you’ll run in to: last year there were over 800 different faculty members who attended one or more sessions of the Faculty Club!

Yours, James Harper

Chair of the Faculty Club Board

+++++++++++++++++++++++

WHO: The UO Faculty Club is open to all UO faculty—tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, library faculty, and OAs tenured in an academic department, as well as people retired from positions in these categories.  Eligible people may bring any guests they like.

WHAT: Cash Bar with beer, wine, liquor and non-alcoholic beverages; complimentary hors d’oeuvres.

WHERE: The Faculty Club meets in a designated room on the ground floor of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art.  Enter at the museum’s main entrance and turn right; the club room is right off the lobby.

WHEN: Wednesdays & Thursdays 5:00-8:00 pm.  We will meet through the last week of classes in Fall Term (i.e. through December 5); activity will resume in the Winter and Spring terms.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Faculty Club Board Chair James Harper (Dept. of the History of Art and Architecture), [email protected]

Why didn’t Kevin Reed tell the feds about UCLA’s admissions scandal?

By | |
1 Comment

The LA Times has the story here. It took place while current UO General Counsel Kevin Reed was chief lawyer at UCLA, and it was a precursor to the “Varsity Blues” investigation that’s just led to jail time for some actress. Reporter Nathan Fenno:

Five years before William “Rick” Singer became known as the mastermind of the nationwide college admissions scandal, an internal investigation at UCLA uncovered key elements of his scam.

The first indication of trouble came in a phone call to the school on May 13, 2014. The mother of a high school student wanted to appeal the university’s decision to reject her daughter’s admission as a water polo recruit. The daughter had never played the sport.

“During this conversation,” a report on the investigation said, “the mother stated she was ‘still willing to pay.’ When asked to what she was referring, [the mother] explained that she understood from [Singer] that she was expected to donate $100K to the program, for the admission of her daughter through athletics.”

UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs Kevin Reed commissioned this investigation. He left UCLA the next year, hired by President Schill as hi VP and UO General Counsel. As Reed noted in his June 2015 job application to UO:

Unfortunately it seems that at least one “potentially mission-interrupting matter” was not really “handled with success at UCLA”, and is now receiving “unwanted attention”. The report Reed commissioned was not made public until the LA Times got a heavily redacted version earlier this year with a public records request. As the LA Times story goes on to note:

UCLA spokesman Tod Tamberg said the school responded to the report with a range of reforms, including a ban on donations from families of athletic recruits until they enrolled. A handful of coaches also were disciplined.

But Reed didn’t notify the Feds, and UCLA allowed Singer to continue his schemes:

Less than a month after Cormier’s report was issued in July 2014, Singer’s company, The Key, held a four-day workshop at UCLA to help students become social media influencers. An advertisement for the event proclaimed: “It isn’t just what you know; it’s who you know and knows you that will make things happen.”

No kidding. Apparently it wasn’t until this year that UCLA turned the report over to the federal investigators preparing the Varsity Blues indictments:

Earlier this year, a UCLA spokesman said, the school turned over a copy of the 43-page report to federal prosecutors as part of its cooperation with the criminal investigation into Singer.

Michael Buckner, an attorney who specializes in sports and education law, said the university did the right thing in launching an investigation but should have referred the findings to federal authorities years earlier and conducted an expanded audit of athletic admissions at the time.

InsideHigherEd’s Scott Jaschik has more here:

Bradley Simon, a former federal prosecutor, said, “UCLA should have immediately notified law enforcement authorities. Had they done so at the time, UCLA would not be enmeshed in the current scandal.”

A few months ago I made a records request to UCLA for Reed’s communications on this. They are claiming attorney-client privilege for all of them:

New law lets DA fine Kevin Reed’s office $200 for public records fails

By | |
4 Comments

HB 2353 has now passed the Oregon House and Senate unanimously, and Governor Brown is expected to sign it soon:

I like how the fine goes to the requester of the records. This emergency legislation is indeed necessary for the sake of the public peace. In the past year the Lane County District Attorney has had to order Kevin Reed’s office twice to comply with Oregon law, and provide records that UO was trying to hide from the public:

And, in November 2018:

Brad Schmidt has petitioned the District Attorney to review a denial of a public records request made to the University of Oregon (University).

Mr. Schmidt asks that the University be ordered to disclose,

All Nike Elite allotment orders, including product descriptions, sizes, costs and delivery/shipping information, from the 2017-18 allotment made by the following individuals: Mike Mennenga, Josh Jamieson, Kevin McKenna, Tony Stubblefield.

In a letter explaining it’s opposition to the petition, the University characterizes the issue as follows.  The University has contracted with Nike, which requires, among other things, that Nike provide product to the University in a certain dollar amount.  In return, the University agrees that certain University personnel, and athletes, wear Nike apparel at what is described in the contract as “program activities.”  The University asserts that the contract requires it to provide Nike products to the affected employees and athletes to wear at such “program activities,” and that it does so through products provided to the University, and passed on to employees.  The University has also chosen to take a certain amount of the allotted Nike product amount, and dedicate it to a system referred as the “Nike Elite” website.  Currently this amount is set at $185,000.

The selected employee is given an allowance in a determined amount.   The University then notifies Nike of the employee who is authorized to receive product from the University’s allotment, and the amount of the employee’s allowance.  The employee then receives access to the Nike Elite website, where the employee can order Nike product.  The University places no restrictions on what is purchased, or for whom.[1]

The District Attorney’s review of the petition must be conducted under the umbrella of ORS 192.314(1), that,

Every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided…

That statute, and the exemptions thereto, reflect a broad public policy that disclosure of public records is the rule, and that any exemptions must be explicitly stated by statute and not simply implied therefrom.  Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School District, 310 OR 32(1990).

The University has proffered 3 reasons why the petition should be denied.

First, the University argues that the requested documents are not “public records,” as defined in ORS 192.311(5)(a).  The University asserts that the records are private records of the expenditure of compensation by an employee, and that the University does not possess the records, rather the involved employees possess the records.

The possession of the records is irrelevant. It is instructive to note that ORS 192.311(5)(b) provides that records of the public’s business are considered “public records,” even though they may be located on a personal computer.  Therefore, the threshold question is do the records “contain(s) information relating to the conduct of the public’s business.”  ORS 192.311(5)(a).  Further, the University refers to the conduct as “purchases” and “spending” or “expenditure” of compensation.  However, no money changes hands.  Simply put, the University grants the employee access to an account to obtain Nike product, that otherwise belongs to the University.  Although the University does not control the website, the University controls whether the employee is authorized to use the website to obtains portions of Nike product allocated to the University.  This is not private conduct, it is public business.

The University claims a number of “exemptions” protecting the records from disclosure.

First, the University asserts, pursuant to ORS 352.22(12), the records are “personnel records,” and are exempt from disclosure.  ORS 352.226(13) sets forth the definition of “personnel records.” The University does not specifically assert that the individuals named in the original public records request are “academic staff member(s).”  However, even if one or more of these individuals are covered by the statute, the records requested to not meet the definition of “personal records” as defined in the Faculty Records Policy.

Second, the University asserts that the petition should be denied pursuant to ORS 192.355(2)(a).  That section exempts from disclosure,

…information of a personal nature…if public disclosure would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance.  The party seeking disclosure ears the burden of showing that the public disclosure would not constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

The District Attorney, in general, agrees with the assertion of the University that how a public employee spends their compensation, is a matter of personal privacy.  For instance, once an employee’s monthly pay is deposited in his/her bank account, it is not “public business” how that employee spend the money. However, as stated above, in this instance, the public employee is using a system to which they only have access by virtue of their public employment.  If that system is used to conduct public business, as opposed to private business, such use no longer qualifies as “information of a personal nature.”

In the blanket denial of the request, the University has failed to meet the burden of setting forth an individualized showing that specific instances of disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.  (See Mail Tribune Inc. v. Michael S. Winter, 236 Or App 91 (2010), requiring a sheriff to make an individualized showing that disclosure of a particular concealed weapons permit would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy).

At this point in time, the District Attorney has not asked the University for the records described in the petition, so that they may be reviewed to make the determination described above.  In fact, the University asserts they do not possess or control the records. ORS 192.411(1) provides the District Attorney with authority to  take one of three actions with regard to a petition, (1) grant the petition;(2)deny the petition; or (3) grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part.  The District Attorney has no other authority to order the public body to take any action, other than the disclosure of the records.

Given the amount of money involved, it can be assumed the records would be voluminous.  Further, simply reviewing the records themselves would not answer the question whether they are exempt from disclosure.  Rather, persons familiar with the records would be the ones to assert that particular records are exempt from disclosure and specific reasons why.

In Mail Tribune,   the court was faced with a similar circumstance.  Rather than try to parse out what hypothetical circumstances might render a record exempt from disclosure, the court instead noted that the burden of proof is on the public body, in a specific instance, to show that disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy.  The court went on to hold that the sheriff had not made a showing in any specific instance, and therefore ordered the disclosure of the entire request.  Further, since no showing had been made by the sheriff, the burden of proof did not shift to the party seeking disclosure to show that the public interest nevertheless demands disclosure.

Therefore, it is the order of the District Attorney that the petition is granted.  The University is ordered to disclose the records. The University has seven days to comply with this order, unless it issues a notice of declaratory or injunctive relief.

[1] The University advises that the employee can also use their allowance at the “Nike Store.”  These records are not part of the original public records request.

Kevin Reed’s office tried to hide cap & trade lobbying records

By | |
14 Comments

5/17/2019 update:

The Oregonian’s Rob Davis reveals still more of the documents UO tried to hide from the public, including more new information about the redactions by Kevin Reed’s Public Record Office.

If I understand the story right, Reed’s office let the lobbying group decide what UO should redact from UO’s public records. They made some interesting choices. Weird. Full story here with links to all the records:

What UO didn’t want the public to know about industry group’s climate bill opposition

… The newly released documents documents include the alliance’s legislative updates, lobbyist reports and memorandums to members. The university originally contended portions of the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and by an exemption allowing material submitted confidentially to be withheld in very narrow circumstances.

Ed Finklea, the alliance’s natural gas director, told The Oregonian/OregonLive it was the energy alliance’s attorney who made the redactions when the university released the records. Molly Blancett, a school spokeswoman, said the university “always solicits the input of third parties when it comes to their records that have made their way to the university’s possession.”

The clean documents show a consistent theme in what was initially redacted: References to potential benefits of Brown’s proposed climate change bill. …

5/14/2019 update:

I have it from a generally reliable source that, as of yesterday, UO has withdrawn its membership in AWEC, the industry group that is lobbying against Governor Brown’s Cap and Trade legislation.

5/12/2019: It backfired. Rob Davis has the story in the Oregonian, here. A few snippets:

Continue reading →

GC Kevin Reed believes “toxic” Faculty Club “reeks of white male privilege”

By | |
37 Comments

Update: Shocking photo reveals Faculty Club debauchery, here.

In other news I believe I have learned the real reason for GC Reed’s anger at me, that it has nothing to do with the Faculty Club, and that it will be public eventually.

Update: Thanks to a commenter for reminding me about the 2016 email from Pres Schill and Prof Harper establishing the UO Faculty Club, which I’ve appended to the bottom of this post.

4/3/2019: Over the past year or so I’ve received many angry emails from UO’s $352,612 a year VP & General Counsel Kevin Reed, above, accusing me of various things and threatening me with various forms of retaliation. I’m posting this latest because he cced others, and because it might be of more general interest:

From: Kevin Reed <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: University Service Opportunities

Date: April 3, 2019 at 9:10:31 AM PDT

To: Senate Executive Coordinator <[email protected]>, “William Harbaugh” <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Skowron <[email protected]>

Cc: [names and addresses of OA, SEIU, and ASUO student leaders redacted]

Bill [Senate Pres Harbaugh, me] and Elizabeth [Senate VP Skowron]

I write in my capacity as a proud Officer of Administration at the University of Oregon.  In that capacity, and as a person who is committed to improving the functioning of shared governance at UO,  I write to question your decision to hold “informational sessions” relating to opportunities to serve the Senate at the “Faculty Club.”

The Faculty Club is not open to OA’s, classified staff, GE’s or students.  It is not an environment where any of those crucial constituencies are likely, in my view, to feel welcome or to show up. Neither to I believe it to be a place where members of UO’s marginalized communities feel in the slightest bit welcome. Indeed, the Faculty Club has earned a reputation on campus as being an exclusionary group, dominated by white men.  Exactly the sort of “good ole boys club” I think the Senate would want to distance itself from.  Curiously, however, Senate leadership has chosen to treat it as its clubhouse.

Indeed, a respondent to a recent campus survey on faculty hiring had this to say about the Faculty Club:

“The faculty club – an extension of UO senate and Bill’s blog is a place where gossip takes place in an exclusive zone.  Sidebar conversations empower those who show up to a space that is less than welcoming to anyone outside a core group of faculty. It reeks of white male privilege – even the name Faculty Club is destructive and screams of exclusion and privilege. Why does the UO community not actively resist these toxic activities?”

As an OA who truly thinks UO deserves better, I could not have said it better.  I add, however, that the message this sends is especially toxic in the context of the current budget situation, in which the president has called for significant cuts to programs.  On his blog, the Senate President has been posting conversations that suggest that there is bloat that should be targeted for cuts in the ranks of student workers, classified staff and officers of administration who are dedicated to making this university a safe and highly effective organization.

I believe the University and the Senate deserve better.

Kevin S. Reed

219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226

(541) 346-3082 | [email protected]

My response:

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for raising these issues. The email from the Senate should have noted that everyone interested in university service, faculty or not, would be welcome to these events. We’ll fix this in the reminder email, which will come out later this week.

I announce at the end of every Senate meeting that *all* Senators are invited to come to the faculty club afterwards.

I encourage the OA’s, student, and staff leaders to contact me and Elizabeth if they have any concerns or suggestions about this.

Bill Harbaugh
UO Econ Prof & Senate Pres
http://senate.uoregon.edu

Kevin’s response:

The fact that you believe that response to be adequate speaks volumes.

Kevin S. Reed
Vice President and General Counsel
University of Oregon

Email sent 11/1/2016 from President Schill and Professor Harper, establishing UO’s new Faculty Club:

Colleagues,

We are pleased to let you know that at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, we will open the new University of Oregon Faculty Club in a new designated space in the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. This idea has been in the works for a number of years, and is meant to provide a place where statutory faculty and their guests can gather in a welcoming and collegial space.

The UO Faculty Club will feature full no-host bar service and complimentary snacks. It will be open from 5 to 8 p.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays through December 1 and resume operations January 11 at the beginning of the winter term. This effort is a pilot project to determine if the club can support regular service. If it is successful, then we will look at extending operations on a permanent basis.

A faculty club like this is something that faculty members have long requested at the UO. The minor renovations needed to accommodate this pilot effort are in line with the long-term needs of the museum, which will also use the room for other events and occasions.

Ultimately, we believe this could be a great way for faculty at the UO to get to know each other outside of the departments and colleges where most spend their time. While this is a social club, we hope that it is also a catalyst for relationship building and collaboration among faculty across the UO campus.

Regards,

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

James Harper
Chair of Faculty Club Board

DETAILS

WHO: The UO Faculty Club is open to all UO statutory faculty—tenure-track faculty, career non-tenure-track faculty, and OAs tenured in an academic department—and their guests.

WHEN: 5 – 8 p.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Pilot project dates will be November 9, 10, 16, 17, 30 and December 1. Operation will resume January 11 after the holidays.

AMENITIES: The UO Faculty Club will feature full no-host bar service and complimentary snacks.

CHILDCARE: Enjoy socializing in the faculty club while your child (ages 3+) participates in a drop in art workshop in the museum’s art studio, directly across from the faculty club. Cost is $10 for the first child, $5 for the second sibling. RSVP […]

INFORMATION: Faculty Club Board Chair James Harper (associate professor, History of Art and Architecture), [email protected].

Gender and minority equity raises: GC Kevin Reed and HR’s Missy Matella using fees and delays to hide analysis

By | |
6 Comments

Back in Sept 2017 the faculty union and the administration signed this MOU here, by which the administration would hold back 0.75% of a 2.0% across-the-board raise for TTF to address “unexplained equity differences potentially related to race, gender, or ethnicity” to be paid starting in Jan 2019.

0.75% works out to a pool of about $450K recurring. These will be permanent increases, if they are ever awarded. Instead of determining these raises transparently, the administration wasted time and money searching for a consultant to do the work. (About $120K near as I can tell. The work is at least a year behind, and still not finished.)

The consultant ran the usual regressions, replicating work I and others had already done, which showed no evidence of a gender gap in pay once the standard controls for rank and department were included. (Except, apparently, for Asian assistant professors.) The committee was skeptical of the results, so they had JP Monroe in IR rerun them. Came out the same, again.

From what I’ve been able to figure out from some leaks and the consulting contract, the administration then decided to proceed anyway, and made a dataset of all the TTF faculty whose salaries were more than ~1.5 standard deviations below and/or 80% or less than their predicted salaries based on rank, time in rank, and department. They then dropped all men who were not racial or ethnic minorities. I think this leaves about 80 people. They then sent departments a request for specific information on the hiring and outside offers of the remaining faculty that might justify their low salaries, or not. The rumor is that productivity was not considered.

This Friday the committee met and went through those faculty, one by one, using this information to decide whether or not they should get a permanent raise, and if so how much. I’ll guess 30 faculty survived this process, with an average raise of about $10K, leaving about $150K or $200 for the remaining faculty. Just a guess, this is all secret stuff.

This seems like an interesting way to attempt to address gender inequities. So back on Feb 28th I asked interim Chief HRO Missy Matella for a copy of the regression coefficients and other aggregate info that would be used to determine who got raises. No individual info, just aggregate results:

Hi Missy,

I’m writing as UO Senate President to request a copy of the regression results provided to UO by Berkeley Consulting Group, and currently being used by the Faculty Salary Equity Study group, as explained on the website at https://provost.uoregon.edu/faculty-salary-equity-study-overview#next-steps:

The Faculty Salary Equity Study work group is in the process of reviewing the regression analysis results and setting the threshold that identifies “negative outliers,” namely those faculty members earning lower-than-expected salaries for the purpose of this study. Identifying “negative outliers” is critically important to fulfilling the requirements of this study. Therefore, the threshold the work group establishes will be more inclusive than the common convention of 1.96 standard deviations below expected salary and 80% of expected salary.

I am not asking for any individual level data. I’m just asking for the regression results as commonly presented by consultants and researchers in this field, e.g.: http://www.utsa.edu/today/2018/images/GenderEquity-2018-08-29.pdf.

Specifically, you should have a table such as this from Berkeley:

…

And a few figures such as this:

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
UO Senate Pres, Econ Prof

Her response was:

Hi Bill – In follow up to our conversation on Friday, I would like to sit down with you, Chris and Melanie to talk about this request and the different interests involved. I talked to Chris and he thinks this makes sense as well. In particular, I think it makes sense to talk about the work of the TTF equity committee and its discussions about how and when to release a report explaining the results and the committee’s work. Chris and I can also discuss the conversations we’ve had about how and when information will be released to UA. Thanks and please let me know some times this week when you’re available.

Always best to read the documents before the meeting, so I followed Matella’s advice and made a public records request for them:

From: Bill Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Records request, Re: salary equity regression results
Date: March 8, 2019 at 4:31:13 PM PST
To: Lisa Thornton <[email protected]>
Cc: Missy Matella <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. Thornton –

This is a public records request for the public records described in the email below.

Please note that the email below to HR Director Missy Matella comes from me as Senate President. She has declined to provide these to me as Senate President. Therefore I’m making this public records request as the editor of the uomatters.com blog.

Ms. Matella has these public records and can easily provide them without fees or delays, however if she proposes to charge a fee, I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest and my ability to widely distribute these public records to the public and reporters through UO Matters.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
http://harbaugh.org

(Despite what Kevin Reed believed when he made a public records request for my emails about academic freedom, a UO employee can’t use the PR law to request docs from UO as an employee, because the state assumes agencies will of course share all information with themselves. Sure. So after Matella stonewalled my question as Senate Pres, I had to make the public records request as a private citizen.)

After some back and forth we scheduled a meeting, and the morning of it I got this response:

From: Missy Matella <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: salary equity regression results
Date: March 26, 2019 at 7:17:30 AM PDT
To: Bill Harbaugh <[email protected]>, Melanie Muenzer <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Sinclair <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Skowron <[email protected]>

Thanks Bill. I’m looking forward to talking about the TTF equity committee’s work, the underlying interests and next steps. I’m also interested in discussing the various roles of campus stakeholders relating to this project, which is being implemented under an MOU between United Academics and UO administration.

Bill, with respect to your individual public records request, I’m happy to pass along your thoughts regarding timing to that office again. I previously sent the office your thoughts regarding when the documents should be produced.

Then, 30 minutes before the meeting started I got this from Kevin Reed’s Public Records Office:

03/26/2019

Dear Mr. Harbaugh:

The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “…regression results provided to UO by Berkeley Consulting Group, and currently being used by the Faculty Salary Equity Study group…” on 03/11/2019, attached. With 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 $435.69. 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.

Please note that if the cost of preparing the documents for you is less than the estimate, we will refund the difference. If the cost of preparing the records for you exceeds the estimate, however, you may be charged for the difference. Following is an outline of how costs are determined.

The office will provide the documents electronically to avoid a copy fee of 25 cents per page.  The office also charges for the actual cost of making public records available.  The charge includes, but is not limited to, staff costs for locating, gathering, summarizing, compiling, reviewing, tailoring or redacting the public records to respond to a request.  The charge may also include the cost of time spent by an attorney in reviewing the public records, redacting material from the public records, or segregating the public records into exempt and nonexempt records.

The cost of time for each employee is calculated by multiplying the employee’s hourly wage calculation (including benefits expenses) by the hours or portions thereof necessary to locate, gather, summarize, compile, tailor, review, redact, segregate, certify or attend the inspection of the public records requested.

Thank you for contacting us with your request.

Sincerely,  Office of Public Records

6207 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403-6207, (541) 346-6823 | [email protected]

When I talked to Ms Matella at the meeting about charging me $435 for a document she had on hand, her response was to deny that she had the consultant’s report, then say she had to follow Kevin Reed’s (purposively dilatory) procedures, and then to say that she did not want to release anything until the process was over, the equity raises had been determined along with the remaining amount to be paid out ATB if any, and (to paraphrase) the administration and its PR flacks had decided how to spin the results. Needless to say these are not justifiable reasons for delaying release of a public record under Oregon’s public records law.

My guess is that faculty – female, minority, or generic – will be lucky to see any money by the end of spring, at which point the complaints and lawsuits from those who feel that this secretive process has harmed them, or not benefitted them enough, or that it has violated Oregon’s new Equal Pay Act will begin.

Too bad. The simple takeaway from this should have been the very good news that, unlike most universities, UO has very little detectable pay discrimination. Instead it’s the same old news – our administration can’t handle transparency.

Check the provosts’s website here for the administration’s spin: https://provost.uoregon.edu/faculty-salary-equity-study

How long will it take Kevin Reed’s PRO to find Trustee evals?

By | |
1 Comment

Or at least make an inflated estimate of the cost of finding them? Given that Reed is also the Board’s attorney, you’d think this would be a pretty easy public records request.

UO’s federal accreditors require the Board of Trustees to conduct a self-study evaluation every two years:

2.A.8 The board regularly evaluates its performance to ensure its duties and responsibilities are fulfilled in an effective and efficient manner. http://www.nwccu.org/accreditation/standards-policies/standards/

OSU’s board posts their evaluations on the internet. Four weeks ago I filed a public records request for the UO Board’s evaluations. Still no response:

University releases subpoena & coach records in bball wage theft case

By | |
Comments Off on University releases subpoena & coach records in bball wage theft case

That would be the University of Maryland. The WaPo:

A federal grand jury in New York investigating corruption in college basketball has requested records from Maryland regarding one unnamed former player, assistant coach Orlando “Bino” Ranson, and Silvio De Sousa, a recruit who ultimately attended Kansas.

Maryland released copies of the subpoenas Friday, along with a statement asserting the university had already sent back all relevant records, and had found no evidence of any violations of NCAA rules or federal laws by any Maryland coaches, employees or players….

Presumably, the feds were investigating Bino and Silvio on charges that they failed to compensate their players for their work hours, i.e. wage theft. While there are employers stealing from employee checks, it is good to hear that UMD has provided the grand jury with evidence that their “student-athletes” were in fact, paid.

I wonder when UO will release its subpoena? UO GC Kevin Reed’s public records office charged Daily Emerald reporter Michael Tobin $113.64 for copies of any federal subpoenas UO had received (there’s presumably one for the IAAF 2021 Championship bid docs too) and then refused to hand them over, and then refused to give him a refund. Max Thornberry had the story in the EW:

General counsel for the university Kevin Reed, a member of the transparency committee, refused to attend Thursday’s meeting and resigned from the committee before the meeting, telling Harbaugh that his office’s participation in the committee would “present a conflict of interest.”

[In an obvious self-contradiction, Reed then appointed Bryan Derringer, an AGC from Reed’s office as his designee.]

… In addition to stepping down from the committee, Reed expressed concern that Harbaugh’s participation presented a conflict of interest as well. Transcripts of emails between Reed and Harbaugh were posted to the University Senate blog.

“You have been assessed over $45,000 in fees on your public records requests over the course of the last five or so years,” Reed wrote to Harbaugh in an email. “You have paid a few hundred dollars for documents, but mostly you have protested the fees and argued for a change in fee policy that would reduce or eliminate fees. A private citizen is, of course, free to engage in such advocacy, but when a public official does so in his official capacity, he does so at his own risk. I have told you this before, and you have ignored my advice thus far. And, as I said the risk is on you, not the university, so I can’t tell you what to do.”

Following Reed’s prompting to consult with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Harbaugh says, an investigator from OGEC – via a phone conversation – determined Harbaugh’s interest in public records makes him part of a class or group of people with shared interests, saying, “Your participation would not even be a potential conflict of interest.”

[UOM: ORS 244.020(1), (13) actually says:

(13)”Potential conflict of interest” means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person’s relative, or a business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of the following:

(a)An interest or membership in a particular business, industry, occupation or other class required by law as a prerequisite to the holding by the person of the office or position.

(b)Any action in the person’s official capacity which would affect to the same degree a class consisting of all inhabitants of the state, or a smaller class consisting of an industry, occupation or other group including one of which or in which the person, or the person’s relative or business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, is a member or is engaged.

(c)Membership in or membership on the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation that is tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Why did the General Counsel’s office omit this important qualification?]

… “This is symptomatic of the university’s contempt for public records law and the principle that people should have access to the records of their government,” Harbaugh says. “This seems to me a case where the university is using its powers under that law not to promote transparency but to try to hide things.”

More here.

I don’t know what UMD charged for releasing these public records, but here’s their subpoena:

 

Eugene Weekly reports on GC Kevin Reed’s refusal to refund student $114 for Fed subpoena PRO wouldn’t provide, & Reed’s refusal to participate in Transparency Committee or send his assistant Bryan Dearinger

By | |
3 Comments

Max Thornberry has the story here:

Transparency Committee Takes on UO Records Policy
Student reporter denied paid-for public records

A student reporter at the University of Oregon was charged more than $100 to obtain UO public records before being told the university would not release them to him.

The reporter didn’t get a refund, and now the university’s Senate Transparency Committee (STC) is asking whether the UO is violating its own policy and abusing public records fees in order to discourage the public and news media from trying to shine light on the university’s operation.

Michael Tobin, a senior news reporter for the Daily Emerald, paid the UO Office of Public Records $113.64 for records before he was told they were exempt from release. He has not received a refund. Tobin submitted a complaint to the STC to find out why he can’t get his money back.

“I’m concerned about a fee for records I was not given,” Tobin told the STC during a Thursday, April 5, meeting. “And if they claim to know Oregon public records law, they should know that if there’s a pending federal investigation that this record would be exempt from disclosure from the start. So I don’t know why they would take my money and then go through the process of pulling the document, attempting to redact it and then say, ‘We can’t give this to you because we talked to the [Department of Justice] about it.’”

… Tobin filed his records request on Feb. 1 for any “federal subpoenas the University of Oregon has received over the past year.” Tobin told the committee he was requesting records he thought might be connected to the 2021 IAAF Track and Field World Championships; IAAF’s selection of Eugene to hold the event has spurred criminal investigations in the US and in Europe into possible corruption around the decision.

… Government agencies are allowed by state law to charge for records. According to the Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual, fees can still be assessed if no responsive records are found or “even if the records located are subsequently determined to be exempt for disclosure.”

UO’s policy, though, says nothing about exempt records and fees, only that “The Office of Public Records charges for the actual cost of making available public records.”

“They have to follow their policies. They have to follow both Oregon law and their policies,” Chris Sinclair, chair of the STC, says. “So if their policies are more restrictive than Oregon law then their policy is the one they have to follow. That’s my understanding.”

General counsel for the university Kevin Reed, a member of the transparency committee, refused to attend Thursday’s meeting and resigned from the committee before the meeting, telling Harbaugh that his office’s participation in the committee would “present a conflict of interest.”

[In an obvious self-contradiction, Reed then appointed Bryan Derringer, an AGC from Reed’s office as his designee.]

… In addition to stepping down from the committee, Reed expressed concern that Harbaugh’s participation presented a conflict of interest as well. Transcripts of emails between Reed and Harbaugh were posted to the University Senate blog.

“You have been assessed over $45,000 in fees on your public records requests over the course of the last five or so years,” Reed wrote to Harbaugh in an email. “You have paid a few hundred dollars for documents, but mostly you have protested the fees and argued for a change in fee policy that would reduce or eliminate fees. A private citizen is, of course, free to engage in such advocacy, but when a public official does so in his official capacity, he does so at his own risk. I have told you this before, and you have ignored my advice thus far. And, as I said the risk is on you, not the university, so I can’t tell you what to do.”

Following Reed’s prompting to consult with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Harbaugh says, an investigator from OGEC — via a phone conversation — determined Harbaugh’s interest in public records makes him part of a class or group of people with shared interests, saying, “Your participation would not even be a potential conflict of interest.”

[UOM: ORS 244.020(1), (13) actually says:

(13)“Potential conflict of interest” means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person’s relative, or a business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of the following:

(a)An interest or membership in a particular business, industry, occupation or other class required by law as a prerequisite to the holding by the person of the office or position.

(b)Any action in the person’s official capacity which would affect to the same degree a class consisting of all inhabitants of the state, or a smaller class consisting of an industry, occupation or other group including one of which or in which the person, or the person’s relative or business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated, is a member or is engaged.

(c)Membership in or membership on the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation that is tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Why did the General Counsel’s office omit this important qualification?]

… “This is symptomatic of the university’s contempt for public records law and the principle that people should have access to the records of their government,” Harbaugh says. “This seems to me a case where the university is using its powers under that law not to promote transparency but to try to hide things.”

[And it will certainly have that effect. UO’s high fees and general refusal to waive them for reporters already discourage access to UO public records. The possibility that you will pay the fees and then get nothing increases the expected cost significantly.]

Chronicle of Higher Ed asks why UO General Counsel Kevin Reed wants faculty emails with reporters

By | |
42 Comments

Thought I’d repost this classic from last year. More related info soon.

2/15/2017 update:

Here (gated if off campus). A snippet:

The dust-up at the university began in November when Kenneth Jacoby, a reporter for the Daily Emerald student newspaper, filed two public-records requests for emails exchanged between several coaches and officials associated with the football team. Mr. Jacoby asked for fee waivers for both requests based on his belief that the records were in the public interest.

Nearly three weeks later, he was told it would cost over $700 to fulfill his request. He then got in touch with Mr. Harbaugh and in December filed a complaint over the cost with the Transparency Committee, which was established in 2010 to review university procedures for processing and fulfilling public-records requests.

In an email to the committee on January 22, Mr. Harbaugh told members that they would be hearing Mr. Jacoby’s complaint the following day and discussing a response. The email, which was obtained by The Chronicle, included an attachment with Mr. Jacoby’s complaint letter.

Mr. Harbaugh, a transparency advocate, files significant numbers of public-records requests in most years. In fact, according to the public-records office, he files more requests than any media outlet. The professor operates a blog, UOMatters, aimed at uncovering misdeeds at the university. In a 2015 profile by The Chronicle, Mr. Harbaugh said he hopes to make the university a “better place” through his transparency activities.

Mr. Reed, however, said in an interview that he began to fear that the Transparency Committee was not, itself, being transparent, and that he was concerned about conversations he was being excluded from.

So he filed a formal request for Mr. Harbaugh’s emails regarding the Senate Transparency Committee that evening, including those sent to media outlets. Mr. Reed specifically asked for emails sent to The Register-Guard, The Oregonian, the Oregon Daily Emerald, The Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Ed. …

In related news, GC Reed’s report on the Duck Athletic Department’s alleged efforts to stifle free speech by threatening to take away Jacoby’s press pass should be out in a week or two.

Note: Just to be clear, I turned over all the emails that were covered by GC Kevin Reed’s request, and I did so at no charge to him. I’m still hoping he’ll take the high road w.r.t. our student-journalists public records request’s, someday. A university that spends millions of dollars on public relations ought to be able to find a few thousand for public records.

2/8/2017: UO Pres Mike Schill’s lawyer wants to read professor’s emails with reporters

UO general counsel Kevin Reed is apparently the first university lawyer in US history – not just UO history – to use the public records laws to get a professor’s emails with reporters and free speech and academic freedom advocacy groups such as FIRE and SPLC.

Full disclosure, I am the professor that Mr. Reed is after. The Register Guard’s Diane Dietz has the story here:

The University of ­Oregon’s top lawyer is using public ­records law to get a professor’s emails to and from reporters and editors of The Register-­Guard, The ­Oregonian, the ­Oregon Daily ­Emerald, The ­Chronicle of Higher ­Education and Inside Higher Ed.

The lawyer, UO General Counsel Kevin Reed, sought any emails exchanged with those publications related to the University Senate’s transparency committee during the past year.

Read it all.

Here are some emails about this, starting with General Counsel Reed’s request:

From: Kevin S Reed <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Transparency Committee meeting, Monday 10AM, 412PLC
Date: January 22, 2017 at 8:52:29 PM PST
To: Senate President <[email protected]>, Chris D Sinclair <[email protected]>, Brent D Walth <[email protected]>, Zane A Karimi <[email protected]>
Cc: Julia S Cohalan <[email protected]>, Kenny Jacoby <[email protected]>, Greg J Stripp <[email protected]>

I will be at the meeting, but note the following:

I was unaware that Prof. Harbaugh was elected chair by email. I am unaware of any such vote taking place, though I was under the impression I am a member of this committee. This follows what appears to have been my exclusion from communication in recent weeks concerning Mr. Jacoby’s complaint regarding the PRO’s decision to follow its policy and not waive fees in responding to a request from the Emerald for student records. I understood that I was a non-voting member of the STC. It seems clear, though, that I am being left out of communications involving the core of the committee’s work. This scarcely seems consistent with the “transparency” part of the committee’s title. If I am not to be included in the communications of the committee, I decline to participate as a member.

Please consider this a request, under the Oregon Public Records Law, of all communications made in in the past 12 months, between the current chair of the Senate Transparency Committee and members of the committee concerning the business of this committee, as well as all communications between the Chair of the STC and any members of the media concerning or mentioning the committee.

I will excuse myself from any discussion by the committee regarding an expansion of the fee waiver policy, due to my belief that a discussion of the subject involving the Committee chair would involve a potential conflict of interest. Prof. Harbaugh was the most frequent requester of public records in the year just ended, and amongst those most frequently to withdraw his request for records when presented with the estimate of the costs associated with the production of those records. Since any action by the committee to demand a change in the PRO policies on fees and fee waivers, if adopted, would have direct financial impact on Prof. Harbaugh, I believe it would be a conflict of interest for him to participate in such a decision. Given Prof. Harbaugh’s participation in the matter thus far, I will refrain from participating in any discussion on the subject in the meeting unless he recuses himself, in order to avoid any appearance that I condone this conflict.

I have attached the Public Record’s Office’s SOPs, setting forth its approach to fee waivers, for the committee’s information. It is unclear to me why the committee would be asked to “make recommendations” regarding the PRO’s balanced approach to fee waivers without presenting the committee with the actual policies implemented by the PRO. So, here they are.

4. I believe the complaint presented by Mr. Jacoby is moot. In his complaint, Mr. Jacoby makes clear  that he seeks records relating to specific, identifiable students at the university. Since this “targeted” request seeks educational records of students who are identified, or are identifiable
within the context of the records and the request, his request has been denied, and any request for fees is now mooted, a decision communicated to him last week. Any records are educational records of identifiable UO students and cannot be released without their consent. The Emerald is no longer being asked to pay fees for the responsive records, since there are no responsive records that can be produced without violating the federally protected rights to privacy of the students involved.

My response:

From: Bill Harbaugh
Date: Friday, February 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM
To: Kevin Reed
Cc: Public Record Requests
Subject: Re: Public Records – Request for Documents 2017-PRR-172

Dear General Counsel Reed –

Two clarifying questions for you:

1) Does your request for
all communications between the Chair of the STC and any members of the media concerning or mentioning the committee
includes any such communications from my non-UO hosted email accounts, or texts on my personal phone?

2) When you say “any members of the media”, are you including my communications with bloggers, and organizations such as SPLC and FIRE?

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu

Reed’s response:

From: Kevin Reed <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Public Records – Request for Documents 2017-PRR-172
Date: February 3, 2017 at 3:04:14 PM PST
To: William Harbaugh <[email protected]>
Cc: Public Record Requests <[email protected]>

Senate President Harbaugh:

In answer to your questions:

1) I seek all communications concerning or mentioning the STC you made in your capacity as an officer of the University Senate (Vice President, President or member or Chair of the STC), regardless of which media or device you sued for your communication.
2) No. I do not believe FIRE or SPLC qualify as “media.” If it helps in narrowing the search, please feel free to limit my request to communications with reporters, editors or other personnel associated with the Register Guard, the Oregonian, the Daily Emerald, The Chronicle of Higher Education or Inside Higher Ed.

But, given that you have shared that you correspond with FIRE, I will make the additional request under the Oregon Public Records Law:

Please share any communications you have had with persons associated with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in the past 12 months, made in your capacity as an officer of the University Senate or member of any of its committees, which communications relate to or concern freedom of speech or academic freedom at the University of Oregon.

Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226
(541) 346-3082 | [email protected]

UO Foundation CEO Paul Weinhold breaks professor’s bequest, transfers control of ~$2.4m from faculty to CoD Dean Lindner

By | |
30 Comments

Technically it was Lane County Circuit Judge Lauren Holland who did this, acting at Paul Weinhold’s request. And presumably Weinhold was acting on CoD Dean Christoph Lindner‘s request, and UO General Counsel Kevin Reed went along with the money-grab because he hadn’t done his homework.

Here’s what I’ve been able to figure out. Longtime UO art history professor Marion Dean Ross was a remarkable man:

He died in 1991. He was dedicated to the field of architectural history, the State, the University, and the Department of Art and Architectural History, of which he had been the first chair. In his will he gave the UO Foundation a $1.2M endowment to buy books and photos on the history of architecture, to be selected by his department’s faculty:

Admirable and inspiring – and a lot of money. At the time the UO Foundation’s endowment totalled roughly $120M.

AAA Dean Jerry Finrow and Professor Jeff Hurwit, chair of Art History, set up a MOU to govern how to disburse of the funds in accordance with Ross’s wishes. The MOU was approved by Ross’s executors and unanimously adopted by the department. Full pdf of the MOU here. [See the comments for Finrow’s view of Lindner/Reed/Weinhold modiciation].

The MOU even spells out a procedure for any necessary revisions, as time moves forward:

Ross’s fund is now worth about $2.4M in 2018 dollars, and it generates $94K a year in expendable earnings, according to the Foundation’s regular 4% rule.

Over the years a surplus of $312k in unspent funds has accumulated. That may seem like a lot, but a library could easily drop $50K on a decent edition of Palladio’s Quattro Libri:

 

Not that I grew up in the shadow of Jefferson’s version of the Villa Capra, copied from this very book.

However as it happens not everyone loves books, and Oregon law has a procedure for modifying the terms of “wasteful” gifts. So on November 9th 2017 UO Foundation CEO Paul Weinhold started the legal process to modify the terms of professor Ross’s gift, claiming that “the unused surplus cannot be used for Dr. Ross’s charitable purpose”:

Things went pretty quick from there. The same day, UO Foundation lawyer Laurie Nelson had her paralegal notify the required parties:

Professor Ross’s sole surviving trustee objected, but no matter. Five days later UO General Counsel Kevin Reed, speaking on behalf of the beneficiaries of Professor Ross’s gift, notified the court that:

From what I can tell Reed wrote this without consulting the department’s faculty, the librarians, or anyone from the UO Senate. He sure as hell didn’t ask me. It’s not clear what Reed told the DOJ or Judge Laurens about the MOU, or if he’d done any due diligence to try and find out about it.

So on Dec 28th 2017 the Judge agreed with Weinhold:

This did two very different things.

1) It gave UO permission to spend some of the Ross Fund earnings for research purposes other than books and photographs – such as grad fellowships. Great.

2) It removed all control of the spending of the fund from the department faculty and gave it to CoD Dean Lindner, without oversight. WTF?

Ross was a professor who had served as a department head and as an interim dean. I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he put his money under the control of the faculty, not the dean. 

If changes needed to be made to prevent Professor Ross’s money from being “wasted” on books, the faculty should have been given a chance to make the changes. 

But there’s no sign the Foundation’s lawyers or UO GC Reed showed the DOJ or Judge Holland the MOU, or explained the difference between having the faculty in control and having the dean in control. 

I wonder how often Weinhold and Reed have been doing this sort of thing.

Court documents and RG clippings here: https://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Ross-Fund-County-Records-1_18-.pdf

MOU here: https://uomatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Ross_Fund_MOU-Master-.pdf