Elections

Call for Nominations

As specified in the UAUO Constitution, an election to establish leadership for United Academics will be held this term. All union members are eligible to run for office and to vote. 

The union-wide officer positions are:

  • President
  • Executive Vice President
  • Secretary
  • Treasurer
  • Vice President for Tenure Track Faculty Affairs
  • Vice President for Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Affairs
  • Vice President for Non-Tenure Track Research Faculty Affairs
  • Chair of the Diversity and Equity Committee
  • Chair of the Grievance and Contract Administration Committee
  • Chair of the Organizing, Membership, and Communications Committee
  • Chair of the State and Higher Education Issues Committee

 

The Representative Assembly has been apportioned by the Elections Committee as follows:

School

TT Reps

NTT Instructional Reps

NTT Research Reps

School of Architecture and Allied Arts

2

2

NA

College of Education

1

3

3

Lundquist College of Business

At Large*

1

NA

CAS Humanities Division

3

6

At Large*

CAS Social Sciences Division

4

2

NA

CAS Natural Sciences Division

2

2

3

School of Music and Dance

2

2

NA

Research Units

NA

At Large*

5

Library

NA

1

NA

Physical Education

NA

2

NA

School of Journalism and Communications

1

1

NA

At Large*

 

1

1

*At Large NTT Instructional Faculty have 1 Rep; At Large TT and NTT Research Faculty Share 1 Rep

Any union member may run for union-wide office, with the exception that a candidate for the Constituency VPs (TT, NTTI, NTTR) must belong to the constituency he or she seeks to represent. To run for a Representative Assembly seat, a candidate must belong to the constituency he or she seeks to represent.

In order to run for a union-wide position, a member must return a nomination form with ten signatures of union members by November 8, 2013. If the member seeks to run for a Constituency VP, the signatures must be from members eligible to vote in that constituency.

To run for the Representative Assembly, a member must return a nomination form, but does not need signatures from other members.

 

Return forms  to the United Academics office: 872 E 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97401

To return  by  email send form to:  info@uauoregon.org

More information on the roles and responsibilities of the elected positions can be found in the United Academics Constitution and Bylaws, available on the UAUO website uauoregon.org in the “About” tab, or by navigating to:

http://uauoregon.org/files/2013/06/UA_Constitution_Bylaws20130604.pdf

If you are unsure of your constituency classification, or for any questions, please emailinfo@uauoregon.org, or call the United Academics office at 541-636-4714.

For a PDF version of this call for nominations, click here.

The Financial Condition of the University of Oregon: A Day with Dr. Howard Bunsis

TWO EVENTS on Wednesday, March 6:

LUNCH ROUNDTABLE
Noon – 1:30pm
McKenzie Hall 375
***RSVP by Monday, March 4 to info@uauoregon.org***

PUBLIC PRESENTATION
3:30pm – 5:00pm
Lawrence Hall 115

Howard Bunsis is Chair of the Collective Bargaining Congress of the American Association of University Professors and Professor Accounting at Eastern Michigan University.  Dr. Bunsis analyzes budgets and provides expert testimony to legislators, arbitrators, and the public.

In 2011, Bunsis analyzed the University of Oregon budget and discovered $90 million in reserve, surplus revenue.  His presentation this year will examine the current state of the budget, review spending over the last few years, and provide guidance on practical ways to think about budgets and priorities as faculty negotiate our first contract with UO.

Please join us for Howard’s presentation.

Financial Condition of UO: Lunch With Dr. Howard Bunsis

LUNCH (RSVP to info@uauoregon.org required)

12pm-1:30pm

Howard Bunsis, Professor of Accounting at Eastern Michigan University and Chair of AAUP’s Collective Bargaining Congress, analyzes budgets and provides expert testimony to legislators and collective bargaining arbitrators.

 

In 2011, Bunsis analyzed the UO budget and discovered $90 million in reserve surplus revenues.  His presentation this year will examine the current state of the budget, review spending over the last few years, and provide guidance on practical ways to think about budgets and priorities during negotiations for first contract for faculty.

 

Bunsis’s straightforward and insightful analysis of higher education finance is not to be missed!  We look forward to seeing you on March 6!

Financial Condition of UO: Dr. Howard Bunsis

PRESENTATION

3:30PM-5PM

Howard Bunsis, Professor of Accounting at Eastern Michigan University and Chair of AAUP’s Collective Bargaining Congress, analyzes budgets and provides expert testimony to legislators and collective bargaining arbitrators.

 

In 2011, Bunsis analyzed the UO budget and discovered $90 million in reserve surplus revenues.  His presentation this year will examine the current state of the budget, review spending over the last few years, and provide guidance on practical ways to think about budgets and priorities during negotiations for first contract for faculty.

 

Bunsis’s straightforward and insightful analysis of higher education finance is not to be missed!  We look forward to seeing you on March 6!

Bargaining Update: February 19 & 21

We had another two full mornings of bargaining last week, dealing with substantial, fundamental issues. On Tuesday (2/19), the Administration presented counterproposals on Tenure and Promotion, Grievance, and Arbitration. On Thursday (2/21), they countered on Discipline and Termination for Cause and Union Rights and presented new proposals on Drug and Alcohol Testing and Criminal Records Checks.

VISIBLE PROGRESS:
Ever the incurable optimists, we found cause for cheer in some of our negotiations this week. We were encouraged, for example, that the administration gave some ground on Grievance and Arbitration, accepting our position that the Union (not only individual faculty members) should be able to file grievances over contract violations. They also expressed welcome interest in getting to the economic proposals sooner rather than later, and we are scheduled to present ours on March 19th. They presented many more substantial counter-proposals than they had done to date. We hope that this means that they acknowledge our concern that the pace of negotiations needs to pick up and that “patience” is wearing thin.

We take all this as a positive sign of progress and as an indication that they understand that the  “new normal” on campus is that the faculty, as represented by the Union, is now a full partner to be recognized and engaged with.  

Of course, there are also areas in which we stare at each other incredulously over a giant chasm, so we’ll also talk about some areas of sharp divergence—and what we think those divergences mean in the big picture.

AREAS OF CONCERN

Tenure and Promotion:
The Administration trumpeted its counter-proposal on Tenure and Promotion this week as cementing current policy—and they cast our quite mild departures from current policy as patronizing to the faculty and bizarre.[1] Actually, our proposal followed current practice very closely, except for some instances where we tried to solve real problems we heard about repeatedly from faculty. We were alarmed to see that the administration made an ominous departure from current policy in proposing to eliminate the PTRAC (Promotion, Tenure, Retention Appeal Committee), a Senate committee also called for in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR’s), which our proposal preserves. The need for a faculty committee that can review personnel decisions by the Provost strikes us as essential. By rejecting our Article 14, which provides for an appeals committee of faculty, the administration is impinging on shared governance and violating accepted standards of faculty involvement in tenure and promotion. We will work to ensure that faculty and peer review are central to the process.

We’re concerned that the Administration announced about the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs), to which we refer in many of our proposals,

“We are trying to avoid reference to OARs because we are moving toward an independent board….They are going to be moot.”

Clichés about babies and bathwater aside, the OARs contain a great deal that we have found over the years to be sound and beneficial to academic freedom, shared governance, due process, and institutional transparency. We will work to memorialize and preserve tried and true practices.  Setting aside OARs erodes administrative accountability even more.  This makes it even more important that detailed standards and procedures be memorialized in our contract.

In our proposed article, we described what we believe has been and should be the case on campus:  

“All tenure-granting departments and programs shall establish promotion and tenure procedures and criteria. All faculty in such departments and programs shall formulate the department-specific promotion and tenure procedures and criteria and shall submit them for review, discussion, possible revision and final approval by their dean and by Academic Affairs.”

Compare this to the Administration’s proposal:

“The university establishes University-wide tenure and promotion criteria that are consistent with expectations for a major public research university. The appropriate Dean or designee will ask the tenured faculty in each unit to recommend in writing tenure and promotion criteria that are consistent with the University-wide criteria. The Dean will consider such recommendation, and make his or her own recommendation for tenure and promotion criteria to the Provost or designee, who will establish criteria for each unit.”  

Clearly we have a different idea of local expertise by discipline and academic judgment (more on this below).

Salary:
We reiterated our proposal from September 2012 that faculty receive a 3.5% COLA raise retroactive to the beginning of this academic year to match that already given to OA’s. Raises for merit and for equity and compression remediation as well as setting salary minima to raise the income of our lowest-paid colleagues would still be subject to bargaining for this contract period, as would across-the-board raises for future years under this contract. As that September letter explained, “At the table, at the appropriate time, we would then negotiate other components of salary for the current academic year, as well as salary increases for the remainder of the contract.” This week we emphasized that we didn’t want to preclude other raises that would have normally been done in the context of current hires and retention, nor do we want to get in the way of common practices related to salaries that occur during hiring season. The short answer we received at the table: no reaction. For more information on our salary proposals, see http://uauoregon.org/statement-on-our-salary-proposals.

Rogue Faculty: how many of us are there?
The Administration countered on our Discipline and Termination article and offered articles of its own: Drug and Alcohol Testing and Criminal Records Checks. We won’t spend much time now on these last two since in our discussion Lead Administration Negotiator Rudnick acknowledged numerous gaps between their intention and the written proposal.

In its Discipline and Termination article, the spectrum of criteria which the Administration considers grounds for discipline is simply too broad. The stark phrase “Unsatisfactory performance”—sweeping and unglossed—is first on the list of grounds for discipline. “Unsatisfactory” by what standard? By whose judgment? By what process? “Failure to maintain the confidentiality of records or information as required by law or the University.” This and other stipulations are so capacious that indiscretion in any area the Administration thinks should be confidential (but the faculty member might not), could result in a disciplinary action. We are concerned that a faculty member’s conscientious judgment about confidentiality—his/her academic freedom—is not protected at all under this article. “Conduct that constitutes a violation of law or University policy”: “University policy” is a moving target, an unlegislated fiat, and we’re still talking about where and how those policies are to be documented.

The Administration team referred several times to the ‘current environment we’re in’ and once to the ‘post-PSU environment.’ As we understand the horrible case at Penn State University, the problem was not that Penn State lacked the ability or the administrative authority to discipline or terminate the criminal employee. The problem was that the PSU administration failed to notify the police of a potential crime when they knew of it; concealed the crimes by not reporting them; and continued employment for, literally, years. We will resist encroachments on faculty rights that rely on off-base rationales like these.

CONTINUED FRUSTRATION:
While we’re pleased with signs of progress on some issues, we continue to be frustrated by the administration’s tactics on others. Our team worked for months to craft meaningful proposals that solve real problems for faculty. Yet our proposals are often met with a clear lack of understanding of what is actually happening on campus and obvious attempts to blur the real issues with extreme, even ridiculous, hypothetical scenarios. Because we are interested in solving real problems, we have entertained the administration’s hypotheticals in good faith and attempted to engage in dialogue to arrive at common solutions to these important issues.

We believe dialogue is a process that, when done in good faith, yields changes in perspective on both sides.  Accordingly, what is said in a dialogue or negotiation is not usually a final position. In some cases, our dialogue has been fruitful, and both sides have learned something. In other cases, the administration seems to have forgotten we are in a dialogue and, in its reporting on the bargaining sessions, has cast snippets and phrases not only as final, but in the most extreme light possible. We hope the administration will abandon these distractions so that we can focus on the real issues we are at the table to solve.

Who is the University?
Yes, we’re still miles apart on that one. The administration continues to refer to itself as “the University” in all its bargaining proposals.  Our terminology difference with the university administration reflects a real difference in how we conceive the mission of universities generally, and the charter of this university in particular. We continue to believe that the faculty, students, staff, and administration are all the university; that governance is shared by the President and the faculty; and that the purpose of the administration is to support the faculty in executing the teaching and research mission of the University. The administration, in contrast, apparently holds the view that they are the heart of the University and that the faculty are properly in service to them.  We will continue to make the case that the University includes all faculty, even the faculty who are members of the bargaining unit.

Rest assured, we will not let these approaches get in the way of our core mission of teaching and research.  Through our well-researched and carefully crafted proposals, we are working to enhance the professionalism of the faculty and to preserve strong faculty voice in governance.  We find it unfortunate that the administration expends valuable time and money bringing minor issues to the table while we are trying to solve real problems, but we will continue to bring focus back to the important issues before us.


[1] What’s our aberrant and patronizing proposal, you ask? To allow a faculty member to bring a colleague to the meeting with the dean at which the college’s decision on the tenure case is announced, orally only, to the candidate.