Diane Dietz has the story in the RG, here: Incoming University of Oregon President Mike Schill negotiated a sweet deal from the UO Board of Trustees. His pay and benefits will be the ninth highest of the 220 top public universities, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education annual report…
Posts tagged as “UO Trustees”
Co-Creating Our University through Shared Governance Remarks by Robert Kyr, Outgoing Senate President Delivered on June 4, 2015 to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees Thank you for the opportunity to offer my remarks to you today, as I complete my most recent term as Senate President, having also…
Wednesday June 3: Committee meetings Thursday June 4: Full Board Friday June 5th: Executive session on union bargaining, board members meet with faculty and staff I’m doing some spotty live-blogging below. I’ve put the headings and some items of potential interest in bold in the agendas below, check the Agenda links for the…
The agendas for meetings this Wednesday – Friday are now posted here. With the UO administration currently proposing to cut the faculty’s real wages, this sticks out:
Here’s an update on the status of the SEIU negotiations. Anyone know anything about the UOPD?
FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2015 PUBLIC MEETING, FORD ALUMNI CENTER, GIUSTINA BALLROOM 8:00 – Board members meet with faculty. Faculty Trustee Susan Gary (Law) gives her talking points and etiquette tips here. I met with two board members and about 10 faculty. It was a very interesting meeting. Confidence inspiring really.…
Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms has managed to arrange the room to keep the board and the UO community even farther apart than last time. Portable barriers are ready, in case the crowd gets restless: The live-blog of Wednesday’s committee meetings is here. News reports: Scott Greenstone in the Emerald on Kurt…
3/4/2014: It appears the Chair of the Finance and Facilities Committee has called in two Conflict Resolution Center “Neutral Observers” to monitor the part of the meeting on proposed tuition increases. Seems a bit excessive?
I’m adding a little live-blogging to the annotated agendas for the BOT’s spring meetings below. Committee meetings today, full BOT meetings Th and Friday. Don’t forget the Senate meets at 3PM today.
Usual disclaimer: My impression of what people said, meant to say, or should have said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. The stuff below is very unorganized, sorry.
3/2/2015 update: No word on whether or not BOT Secretary Angela Wilhelm will tear down that wall of PR flack tables separating the Trustees from the university community during this Thursday and Friday’s meetings, but it’s a good sign that 20 months into their term in office, the Board is willing to meet with faculty. I’m on the list, so Wilhelm’s assistant Amanda Hatch can’t have been screening people too carefully:
MEMORANDUM
March 3, 2015
TO: Individuals Attending Faculty/Trustee Discussions
FROM: Susan Gary, Faculty Trustee
RE: Thoughts on the March 6 Discussions
Thank you for your willingness and interest in participating in the discussions with UO trustees this
Friday, March 6, at 8:00 AM. These conversations will give the trustees a great opportunity to learn
more about the faculty – what we do, our strengths and the challenges we face. I thought it would be
helpful to provide some ideas about conversation topics, although these are not restrictive. You should
feel free to discuss any issues of concern to you, and the trustees may have questions they want to ask.
The conversations will evolve, as conversations do.
Our initial target size was 10 faculty members and three trustees per group. Given the number of
people who expressed interest, we can accommodate everyone if we increase the group size to 11, so
that is what we have decided to do. I think 11 should be fine; if you would prefer to wait until June (we
plan to have more discussions then), please let Amanda Hatch know and we can save your information.
The trustees will want to hear from everyone, so please be courteous with respect to time so that
everyone can have a chance to speak. It’s a conversation, so multiple short comments will likely be
better than one long comment per person.
Here are suggested topics for discussion that I brainstormed. I use “faculty” to include both TTF and
NTTF because most topics apply to both, although sometimes in different ways.
Faculty classifications.
– What do the classifications of faculty as TTF and NTTF – mean? (and NTRF and Library faculty if
someone can speak to those categories)
– What roles do different faculty members play?
–
– What is the promotion process like for TTF and NTTF?
Teaching.
– What contributes to teaching excellence?
– How much work goes into preparing a class?
– How do teachers keep their classes fresh?
– How does the Teaching Effectiveness Program work with faculty to improve teaching? (Have you
taken advantage of TEP and what has been the benefit?)
– How does research contribute to teaching?
– What are classroom conditions like – technology, class size, and configuration of classrooms?
– How do negative factors hinder teaching excellence – increases in class size, increased teaching
load?
Service.
– What kind of University and unit service do faculty do?
– What is the service work load and what types of service work do faculty do (admissions,
scholarships, curriculum, hiring, promotion and tenure, etc.)
– How does the level of service required affect teaching and scholarship?
Mentoring.
– How do faculty mentor students?
– Undergraduates? What kind of mentoring do undergrads need? What are the
challenges/rewards of mentoring undergrads?
– Graduate students? What is the relationship between an advisor and a
candidate? How does advising a grad student work?
– How do faculty help students think about career options?
Research.
– What is the role of research for a TTF?
– What is the grant writing process like?
– What is the publication process like?
Masters or Ph.D.
– What synergies exist among the research, teaching and service obligations of faculty members?
– (Note: There is a lot to say about research, but this is an area the trustees have already had
some exposure to, so it may be good to focus on other topics.)
Unit structure.
– How do TTF and NTTF interact within units?
– How do units govern themselves?
University Senate.
– What role does the Senate play? What role should the Senate play?
– Do faculty feel engaged with the Senate?
Online education.
This probably deserves a separate discussion when issues can be discussed more thoroughly – there is a
lot of work needed to develop a strategy – but someone may have particular insights to share.
2/25/2015 update: Ron Bramhall (Business) and faculty union VP for NTTFs, persuades the BOT’s sole Faculty Trustee, Susan Gary (Law), to invite NTTFs to meetings with Board members:
While these are much more complete than in the past, and while the Board has helpfully abandoned its previous strategy of holding meetings when the students are away on break, Secretary Angela Wilhelms has pre-redacted some of the most potentially interesting info from the agenda (docket) links, saying it’s not…
2/22/2015: Paul Omundson on UO Board’s failed search plan An Op-Ed in the RG, here: Despite spectacular success on the football field, these are hardly good times for the University of Oregon. … Donors gone amok in self-aggrandizement, with a growing cadre of campus development and donor relations personnel, is…
2/21/2015 update: That’s the vote from today’s ASUO meeting.
Duck Athletic Director Rob Mullens is now in the difficult position of having to choose between:
a) taking the same $1.6M as last year and being revealed as the sort of person who would try and bluff our students for money, or
b) cutting the ticket allotment and being revealed as the sort of person who would take revenge on the students over $50K, after getting a $250K raise himself.
Presumably he’ll figure out some way to take the offered 0% increase and try and save face. My guess is this will involve a donation from some Duck booster who suddenly finds it in his heart to give a little to UO students.
By rejecting the Duck try for a 10% increase, our students are leading the way to the March 4th meeting of the full UO Senate, which will consider legislation to hold the Athletic Department to its 2004 promise to start making payments to UO’s academic side for academic scholarships. The student vote is a hopeful sign that maybe UO can finally figure out how to balance the interests of the Duck’s big-time sports enterprise and its well paid coaches and AD’s with those of UO’s cash-strapped academic side.
2/21/2015 update: Meanwhile, the University of Akron is *paying* its students to go to basketball games, in an effort to build some buzz for TV. And in cash – not just Uncle Phil bobbleheads.
Ironically, as Fox Sports points out, if Akron were to give the *players* $5 for showing up for each game, they would swiftly bring down the wrath of UO’s Jim O’Fallon and his NCAA infractions committee.
2/20/2015: Lubash and ASUO Student Senators call out Eric Roedl out on his ticket threat
Letter to the Daily Emerald, written by UO undergrad and Truman Scholar Andrew Lubash, and signed by 13 other Senators and 3 ACFC members, here:
… Out of the $15 million ASUO budget, students spend $1,695,348 paying for the football and men’s basketball ticket lottery. This comes down to about $71 per year that students pay through their mandatory fees for the chance to go to our athletic events. We, the undersigned, think this is too high. …
However, when the ASUO began negotiating with the Athletics Department this year, we were surprised to find out that not only was there absolutely no chance they were going to give us more tickets, they were requesting $169,000 more from students than last year, for the same number of tickets. A 10% increase!
We were infuriated.
Now, they say that they will likely begin cutting student football tickets if we don’t give them at least a 3% increase (~$50,000). Their actions are greedy and deplorable. They’re acting like a business focused solely on profit, when they should be working towards supporting the academic side of this university. Why isn’t there an expectation on our campus that athletics give back to students? Students aren’t even guaranteed a ticket.
… After an article came out in the register Guard saying that the Athletic Director would fundraise millions in order to pay for his own salary increases ($700,000/year) and those of other Athletic department staff, we had had enough. We find it fundamentally unfair that the Athletic Department can find it within their hearts to fundraise for themselves, yet they resort to threatening to cut student tickets if the ASUO does not give them their requested increase. Is it actually that hard for them to raise $50,000 on top of the millions they already plan to raise? We don’t think so.
… At some point, someone needs to stand up and shine a light on the enormous difference that exists between what the Athletic Department deems as “necessary” and what students deem as excessive. Many of us struggle to afford our education as it is. We should not stand for our own Athletic Department to treat us as another lucrative source of funds to line their own pockets with. It’s time for them to start giving back and support students of all financial backgrounds.
We don’t understand how the ASUO, in good conscience, could increase the Athletic Department’s budget $1 unless we guarantee that students get more football ticket. If more tickets is not an option, we should not agree to charge students more for the same amount of tickets.
[Signed by 17 Student Senators, etc.]
2/19/2015 update: Duck’s Eric Roedl threatens to cut student tickets unless they pay 10% more:
Actually, our students have already talked him down to a 3% increase, and Roedl’s latest threat seems pretty unlikely, given that Scott Coltrane just told the UO Board that athletics would have no problem coming up with millions to pay for raises for Helfrich and Mullens.
But Roedl’s giving it a half-hearted effort anyway. Gotta try and cover his own $42K raise, I suppose:
From: Eric Roedl
Date:02/19/2015 4:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: [student name redacted]
Cc: Laura Jorgensen
Subject: Student Seating Options
[Student name redacted]
Attached ticket calculator contains two options:
1. Represents a 3% increase to I-Fee as discussed with no impact to student seat allocation.
2. Represents a 0% increase to I-Fee. Under this model we would likely [emphasis added] reduce the number of football seats per Pac 12 Game (Utah, Wash. St., Cal, USC, Oregon St.) by 300. We would then increase the number of Pac-12 Season Student Season Ticket Plans available for student purchase (at a price of $300 per package) by 300.
Please review and let me know if you have any questions or thoughts prior to submitting.
Thanks, Eric
Spreadsheet here.
2/10/2015 10:30 update: AAD Eric Roedl fails to talk students into paying more
The committee can’t agree, so the default recommendation of $0 goes to the ASUO Senate, for a Feb 24. vote. That’s a $1.6M cut from last year. Rob Mullens has two weeks to raise the money from donors, twist enough arms in the student senate to get a bailout, or convince Scott Coltrane to stick to the threat of a cut in tickets if the students don’t pay up.
The compromise plan should be to switch to a voluntary athletics fee. Roedl hates that idea because he wants to hide the true cost of “free” tickets from the students.
8:00 AM Tuesday, Now, in the EMU Rouge River room.
Lubash is giving Roedl a brutal beating. Roedel is trying to cram down a mandatory student fee increase, the day after the AD announced it had the funds to give $2M in raises to the coach and athletic director.
My guess is Roedl bails and leaves the money on the table, but who knows? Students will have to play hardball, and he’s spewing doubt and confusion.
Student asks what would happen if they cut the IFee? Roedl won’t say.
Lubash: You say you can raise money to pay for coach’s raises. Why not go out to you donors and ask for money to pay for cuts in student ticket prices.
Hansen: Notes that the AD estimate for ticket values assumes demand curves don’t slope down. Ben assigns failing grade.
Schlegel: Never a campaign among donors to get donations for student tickets? Roedl: Not to my knowledge.
I gotta go, sorry no more live-blog.
3:30 PM update: UO Board approves fat raises for Helfrich, Mullens. Ducks want more student cash.
Diane Dietz has the story, here.
It’s tough listening to Coltrane push this on the Board: “The cost of these contracts is borne entirely by athletics”. Sure, if you ignore the millions in hidden subsidies from student tuition money.
The brown-nosing at this meeting is pretty deep. The trustees did have some tough questions about the Falling Sky contract to sell beer to the students at the new EMU though.
2/9/2015 update: That’s what’s happening today, in 15 minutes, at the Board’s EAC meeting. Angela Wilhems is still hiding the contracts, but it looks like Mullens will get a $250k raise to $700K, while Helfrich will go from $1.5M (if I remember right) to ~$3.5M. Plus a plethora of bonuses, of course.
Well this certainly explains why Mullens has been trying to get more money out of the UO students. More on that below and here.
2/9/2015: With Matt Court attendance < 50%, Mullens wants to raise student fee
According to this new report from the OC Register’s Ryan Kartje, Oregon’s basketball attendance is down 24% from last year. Word is the student section was half empty tonight.
But apparently that’s not going to keep Duck Athletic Director Rob Mullens and his AAD Eric Roedl from trying to raise the mandatory fee they charge UO students for tickets. Kaylee Tornay has the report in the Daily Emerald, here:
The Feb. 6 budget hearing between the athletics department and the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee, which determine annually the amount and price for student ticket distribution for football and men’s basketball games, led to yet another stalemate in reaching an agreement. The ACFC approved a proposal of an 18.9 percent decrease to the Athletics Department’s current ASUO budget. Later, this decision was overturned due to faulty voting processes, according to ACFC Chair Andrew Lubash.
The budget hearing was the second held this year to work out how much it will cost students next year, regardless of whether they attend athletic events or not, to receive the same amount of tickets to athletic events that they received in the 2014-2015 school year. Students pay for 5,448 tickets per regular season football game and 1,854 per basketball game. These are distributed via a lottery system (when you log onto goducks.com and watch the O spin for an hour hoping to get a ticket) that is funded by a percentage of the Incidental Fee, which each student pays every enrolled term.
This year the student body as a whole paid the Athletics Department $1,695,348 for the ticket lotteries for football and men’s basketball. The Athletics Department opened negotiations this fall requesting a 10 percent increase to provide the same amount of tickets for the 2015-2016 year. This would mean an additional $169,535 and would bring next year’s total to $1,864,883.
The ACFC met with Athletics on Jan. 16 and negotiated the request to a possible 3 percent increase rather than 10 percent. That would mean students would pay $50,860 more than they did this year. However, no official agreement was reached, and the ACFC discussed the athletics budget again in a meeting on Jan. 30. Ronnie Grenier-Hemphill, the chief liaison between the Athletics Department and ACFC, informed the Committee that Eric Roedl, Executive Senior Associate Athletic Director of Finance, had brought up the possibility of having to cut the amount of tickets, if anything less than the 3 percent increase were approved.
The Emerald followed up with Roedl on the matter and he delivered the following comment:
“Maybe we’d adjust the ticket allotment in some ways to more accurately reflect the value and the money that’s being transacted…we’d continue to have dialogue to find something that works for everybody.” Roedl said.
Funny, I don’t remember anything about falling attendance in Roedl’s powerpoint, when he was hitting up the students for a 10% increase.
If the students do pay this, where will the money go? To people like AD for Finance Eric Roedl, who’s already managed to scrape up the funds to give himself a $42K raise, to $212K, in just two years:
2014:
2012:
The RG has a story on today’s higher education lobby day at the state capital, here: Meanwhile, the UO boosters who collected $450K in big donations for a PAC to persuade Kitzhaber and the Legislature to give UO an independent board managed to get their way without spending a…
6/23/2015 update: Oregon Law says: PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WITH A GOVERNING BOARD 352.025 Legislative findings. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that the State of Oregon will benefit from having public universities with governing boards that: (a) Provide transparency, public accountability and support for the university. (b) Are close to and…
“The materials for this portion of the agenda are not yet complete”. The meeting is Monday at 3PM, Room 402 in the Alumni Center. BOT Secretary Angela Wilhelms has done her best to evade the intent of public meetings law a few times before, this is getting pretty shameless. Coltrane…