letters
TO THE EDITOR
FOLLOW THE DUCK BUCKS
In a time when transparency is in high
demand, it seems fi tting to be drawing our
attention to the covert operations of our
beloved ducks at the UO. The distribution
of money within this academic institution
is not in line with the university’s mission
to provide “a continuing commitment to
affordable public higher education.”
As an out-of-state student responsible
for funding my own education, the idea
that tuition has risen 200 percent in the
past 10 years is astonishing given the fact
that average wages have remained stagnant
since the 1980s. Where’s that money
going? Not to academics. In the past fi ve
years, the athletic budget has soared from
$47 million to $76 million, whereas the UO
Foundation general academic scholarship
funding was cut $1.4 million. The salary
distribution of faculty, classifi ed staff and
administration has been all but transparent
— administrative allocation increased by
$2 million while faculty and classifi ed staff
have not received adequate compensation
as their workloads increase.
As a part of the future generation of
citizens and decision-makers, I feel cheated
by the university’s dishonest representation
of academic affairs. I may quack like a
Duck, but I am here to learn — and I ask that
others stand in solidarity with the teachers
who provide our education and with the
students who pay for it. Join the Occupy
Eugene Education Alliance for weekly
meetings, from 3 to 5 pm Tuesdays in the
Ben Linder Room EMU Amphitheater,
would be hard-pressed to imagine how it
could in an 88 percent white county.
Politics ain’t bean bag. The sooner
the commission’s liberal minority and its
supporters stop acting like cry-babies, making
bogus accusations, the sooner they can
reestablish the majority they once enjoyed.
Andy Stahl
Eugene
CRUM’S THINKING
to support equitable resource distribution
within higher education.
Christa S. Linz
Eugene
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Gary Crum’s Viewpoint (11/17)
should be titled “Misleading” instead of
“Unconstitutional.” Crum argues that the
Lane County commissioner’s redistricting
decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s
“equal representation” mandate because the
plan improves the chances of a “conservative”
winning a “liberal” incumbent’s seat.
Crum is simply wrong. Neither the
Constitution nor any statute bars redistricting
based upon the political preference or party
of the electorate. There is, in fact, a long
and storied tradition of doing so; it’s called
the “spoils system” — to the victor goes
the spoils. As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, “a jurisdiction may engage in
constitutional political gerrymandering.”
Hunt v. Cromartie (1999).
The
Constitution
does
bar
gerrymandering based upon race. Crum
does not allege the commission majority
engaged in racial gerrymandering. One
Gary Crum’s Nov. 17 Viewpoint reads
almost like a legal brief in a lawsuit
attacking the redistricting of their own
electoral districts ordered recently on a 3-2
vote by the Lane County commissioners.
Ideally, redistricting decisions would be
made by an objective outside body, but we
are bound by the present system and our
only immediate recourse is litigation.
Immediately beside Crum’s article on
the same page is Ann Tattersall’s letter
expressing only her unhappiness with the
decision. She makes no effort to persuade
others of her opinion, instead using the insult
and exaggeration (“Wonderland Tea Party”
and “return us to medieval times when
commoners were subject to the whims of
layers and layers of royalty and aristocracy”),
which we are all subjected daily by the ever-
coarser advocates on every public issue.
My hopes are two: that Crum’s thinking
will fi nd its way into a legal proceeding and
that Tattersall will control her anger and use
her energy to persuade others of her position.
Gil Campbell
Eugene
viewpoint
A Clear Violation
Kitzhaber outlines case against Lariviere
EDITOR’S NOTE: Gov. John Kitzhaber released the following public statement Nov. 26.
It has been quoted widely and published online, but we have not yet seen it in print.
F
irst, let me say that the situation involving the Oregon State Board of Higher Education
and Dr. Richard Lariviere has nothing to do with an “ongoing difference of opinion
over the future of the University of Oregon,” as Lariviere suggested in an email sent
out to faculty and students last Tuesday.
My education strategy includes building a world-class, innovative system of higher
education that delivers better results for students and serves as an engine for our state’s
economic recovery. Achieving these goals requires all of our university campuses, the Oregon
University System and the State Board of Higher Education to be pulling in the same direction.
While the timing of the board’s action on Lariviere’s employment contract may come
as a surprise to some, the possible decision to terminate his contract should not, given his
record.
There have been a number of well-publicized incidents involving Lariviere that have eroded
trust and confi dence with the Board of Higher Education. He disregarded board direction on
more than one occasion. His decision to bypass the board and lobby for increased independence
for UO was a clear violation of policy and made our larger, collective efforts to advance system-
wide reform much more diffi cult. Consequently, Lariviere’s employment contract was limited to
one year and included specifi c performance standards in an attempt both to alert Lariviere to
the seriousness of these issues and to create an opportunity to rebuild trust.
But his conduct has not changed.
Most recently, after agreeing face-to-face with the other presidents to limit compensation
increases given the state budget’s severe revenue constraints, Lariviere unilaterally granted
substantial salary increases to his administrators and faculty. Unlike every other university
president in the state, he disregarded my specifi c direction on holding tight and delaying
discussion about retention and equity pay increases until the next biennium to allow for a
consistent, systemwide policy on salaries.
His decision not only undermined the board, it undermined my own directive and the
credibility of my administration with the other campuses that complied with the agreement.
I am not saying that retention increases are not warranted — they are — but the faculty
retention problem is not unique to UO. By acting alone, Lariviere has created signifi cant
diffi culty for other schools. At Portland State University, the increased pressure on the
administration continues to prevent successful conclusion of contract negotiations with its
faculty. His actions show little regard for the needs of the rest of the university system,
other campuses, and the state.
4
DECEMBER 1, 2011
EUGENE WEEKLY
Lariviere’s popularity in the UO community speaks for itself.
But evaluating his performance requires more. His responsibility
to the Board of Higher Education and his contribution to the
larger issues and success of the entire system fall short. Indeed,
Lariviere’s actions have done damage to our vision for higher
education and other institutions of higher learning; and, ironically,
have served to undercut his own aspirations for UO.
His vision for the UO ultimately needs the support of the
governor, the speaker of the House, the president of the Senate
and a majority in both chambers of the Legislature. That does
not exist today. I am personally committed to the concept of
local governing boards and seeking new funding sources
for Oregon’s universities, including consideration of
an endowment funding model, but Lariviere has
made the path to reform much steeper. Indeed, the
orchestrated media blitz over the past few days
has made some of those who are not warm to his
ideas even more resistant.
In my opinion, should the Board of Higher
Education decide to terminate Lariviere’s
contract on this basis, it would be fully justifi ed
from an executive management standpoint.
Any private sector CEO faced with a division
manager who was totally dedicated to his
or her specifi c department but willfully and
repeatedly undermined the needs and goals
of the overall company would, I expect, fi re
the manager — and probably after the fi rst
instance of such behavior; not the second. And
few would be sympathetic to a call for special
treatment.
The Board of Higher Education is a group
of thoughtful and dedicated Oregonians — many
of whom have executive management experience
themselves — and I am confi dent that their decision will
not be arrived at lightly but only after much deliberation.
I intend to fully support them as we pursue excellence in
higher education across the state of Oregon.
John Kitzhaber, M.D., is a graduate of South Eugene High School and
Oregon Health & Science University. He was an emergency room physician in
Roseburg, was elected to the Oregon Senate and authored the Oregon Health
Plan. This is his third term as governor of Oregon.
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM