The following document was transmitted to Senate President Peter Gilkey on 4 May 2000 as an enclosure in an email from GTFF President Paul Prew(veerleft@darkwing.uoregon.edu). It contains a brief statement that he wished transmitted to the UO Senate and is posted as per his request.

---

• It is the contention of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation (GTFF) and its affiliates (American Federation of Teachers and American Federation of Teachers - Oregon) that the University of Oregon is denying information to the GTFF that is necessary to studying the possibility of including training grant employees in the GTFF, necessary to our ability to contact training grant employees, and crucial to the understanding of the effects of the new budget model changes, especially regarding the retention of Graduate Teaching Fellows (GTFs).
• It is also our contention that university officials chose to reinterpret the Federal Educational Records and Privacy Act (FERPA) as a justification to deny this information in an attempt to harm the ability of the GTFF to represent and protect its members. Although Marian Friestad and Mark Zunich have been the contact people for the university on this issue, how FERPA came to the attention of university officials is unclear. As a point of information, FERPA is being used in the University of California system and also at Oregon State to prevent new graduate student unions in their formative period from obtaining information necessary for their organizing efforts.
1. The FERPA statutes were created in 1974, and as of this date, the GTFF is unaware of any judgements against universities for their compliance with labor law in supplying information.
2. After delaying the return of information regarding training grant employees, the university responded with a list of training grants on February 23, but the employees' names were conspicuously and intentionally blacked out.
3. The GTFF submitted another information request one week later.
4. On February 23, the university negotiating team, including Marian Friestad and Mark Zunich, proposed changing the language in Article 3 of the contract to state "Ten working days before the start of each term, the University shall provide the Union with a list of all GTFs, both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit, currently employed at the University who have consented to have this information released. (Items that are struck out are items to be deleted, and items underlined are items the university intended to add.)
5. In addition, the university negotiating team also provided the GTFF with a proposed revision to the offer letters sent to potential graduate employees.
6. At the February 23 meeting, the GTFF voiced its opposition to the inclusion of these changes in any form, citing the inability to adequately represent the graduate employees on campus. At the next meeting, the GTFF also informed the university team that the insurance plan would also be adversely affected because of the delay in information.
7. On the day after the changes regarding release of information were proposed, February 24^th, the university universally implemented their proposed changes. An email by Debbie Davidson was sent to all departments instructing them to add the proposed changes to the offer letters sent to graduate employees. By acknowledging that these changes should be collectively bargained by bringing them to the negotiating table and then universally implementing the changes prior to agreement, the university was acting in bad faith during negotiations.
8. In addition, the policy by the university violates clauses in the GTFF contract that state when and what types of information will be released to the GTFF.
• Further support that the university is intentionally disrupting the operation of the GTFF is demonstrated by the fact that the university is not consistent in the way it chooses to interpret FERPA.
1. Much of the information being denied the GTFF about graduate employees is available through various means (such as department directories, university phone lists and other less conspicuous sources), but it is in a form that cannot be used for the purposes of administering the insurance plan or adequately representing the graduate employees on campus.
2. In fact, the university sells names and home addresses to private "third party" credit card companies.
1. Given the university's interpretation of FERPA, they seem to be contradicting themselves.
2. Discover Card applications are arriving at GTF home addresses that state, "As a student of the University of Oregon . . ."
3. Because the information discloses the fact that the GTF is a student at the University of Oregon, it is obviously in contradiction of the university's interpretation of FERPA.
• The university did not research this issue nor include the GTFF in discussions about the possible ramifications of universally implementing a policy that denies the GTFF information about graduate employees.
1. Although the university was well aware that FERPA had existed for 26 years, it chose not to research the situation and work with the GTFF, but instead Marian Friestad and Mark Zunich relied on vague "conversations with legal council" to make a decision to unilaterally implement the proposed changes.
2. President Frohnmayer made a statement to a student referring to the situation as a "dumb law interpretation."
3. The GTFF was only aware that the university implemented the policy only after being informed by a GTF, Joseph Bear Wilner, on March 9 that the proposed revisions were included in his offer letter.
• The policy adopted by the university has had many detrimental effects.
1. The university's policy has made it nearly impossible to effectively represent the graduate employees on the University of Oregon campus.
1. As of May 3^rd, nearly two months after the university implemented its policy, the university has provided information for only 555 of nearly 1200 graduate employees who are represented by the GTFF.
2. Although the university claims this is a temporary glitch, there is a significant amount of turnover of graduate employees each term, and nearly one-third of our members are new each year, ensuring information problems will persist for years to come.
3. Without information regarding graduate employees, we cannot talk to students, provide them with information about the contract and insurance, represent them in conflicts with their employer or ensure that they are properly classified as a GTF.
4. Any information requests will be unreasonably delayed especially if the information is requested of employees not currently part of the GTFF.
1. In cases of disputes over who should be included in the GTFF, the GTFF is allowed access information to employees that may not be part of the GTFF at the time.
2. If we request information on these individuals, our requests will be unreasonably delayed by the process of distributing and collecting release of information waivers.
3. We cannot adequately seek to represent these individuals under these conditions.
5. The university policy also violates the contract because it allows students to choose whether they wish to be part of the GTFF.
1. On this campus, the GTFF has a "fair share agreement" meaning that GTFs cannot "opt out" of the benefits of membership and must pay a certain amount to cover the costs of the GTFF in the enforcement and bargaining of the contract with the University of Oregon.
2. If the university does not provide us with information regarding these individuals, we cannot be certain that students who check "no" or do not check either affirmative or negative options on their release of information waivers will be paying their "fair share" amount.
1. If the university does not deduct the fair share amount, it allows the GTF to chose not to be a part of the GTFF.
2. If we are denied information about all GTFs, the GTFF cannot monitor the contract to ensure the fair share agreement and other portions of the contract are being enforced.
3. In addition, we cannot contact those individuals to inform them of the benefits of the contract and their insurance package.
4. The university's release of information letter is misleading by stating that "personal information" will be released to the GTFF and implying that the GTFF can help a student prior to the student's information being released to the GTFF. (Here is a copy of the initial notice and the notice just two days prior to the deadline for the university to inform us about people eligible for continued insurance coverage - see below.)
5. Any letter written by the university, or even the GTFF, cannot possibly communicate the benefits of union membership in the same manner as face to face interaction.
6. The release of information forms are denying GTFs the opportunity to hear the benefits of union membership.
2. The actions of the university also make it very difficult to monitor and deal with the new budget changes being instituted.
1. Although we have been assured by Marianne Nicols that the number of actual GTF positions will increase in all departments, the GTFF has received word that many departments are actually experiencing decreases.
1. Sociology is decreasing from 89 GTF terms to 72.
2. The GTFF has been told that Educational Leadership, Technology and Administration (DELTA) will decrease from 23 to 8 GTF positions.
2. In addition, the university negotiating team including Marian Friestad, Mark Zunich and Marianne Nicols has made it clear on many occasions that despite the assurances above, the university is primarily concerned with increasing the number of graduate students on campus NOT Graduate Teaching Fellows.
3. The College of Arts and Sciences web site confirms the university's preference for graduate students, not GTFs. "Granting graduate tuition waivers can then become an important tool in affecting our state support, depending in part on whether a graduate student would attend a particular UO program without a GTF and the concomitant tuition waiver."
4. The GTFF has received word that some colleges such as the Law School will be eliminating GTF positions and splitting the money between work study positions and scholarships.
5. In order to ensure that the increase of graduate students is not at the expense of GTF positions (a violation of the contract between the University of Oregon and the GTFF), the GTFF needs information regarding the possible fragmentation of GTF funds to be diverted to hourly employees conducting GTF work.
6. Given the university's very clear statement about emphasizing non-GTFs, the GTFF fears that the denial of information is a means to conceal the dramatic reduction in GTFs due to the expense of tuition waivers, insurance and fee subsidies.
3. In essence, the timing of the university's actions is very convenient to obstruct our knowledge of the potential changes and pursue any gathering of information regarding training grant employees. However, the university also caused one other significant problem which they were warned about but chose to ignore - the disruption of insurance coverage.
1. The GTFF office has received calls from concerned GTFs stating that they have received a notice that their insurance has been canceled, but they are still employed at the university.
2. The actions of the university has created a great deal of confusion among graduate employees and an increased burden on the staff of the GTFF to deal with the inaccuracies generated by the university's actions.
3. However, a larger problem has occurred because of the denial of information.
1. By March 2^nd, the GTFF negotiating team informed the university negotiating team that continued insurance coverage (COBRA) would be disrupted by the withholding of information.
2. By law, the University must inform the GTFF within 30 days of a "qualifying event," such as a layoff, termination etc.
3. On April 13, the University of Oregon sent a notice to students who were no longer employed (and eligible for COBRA) as of March 15, effectively giving the student 2 days to respond and the university to relate the information to the GTFF.
4. At this point, we are aware of several GTFs who are no longer employed by the University of Oregon, but have yet to receive a COBRA offer.
1. Since the GTFF has not received information about the change in employment status for many of the GTFs eligible for COBRA coverage, these students may still remain on the current insurance plan, ODS.
2. We are in the process of contacting ODS to discover what are the ramifications of students who are no longer eligible for the ODS plan, yet may be incurring medical expenses that are charged to the ODS plan.
3. At this point, we speculate that ODS may refuse payment on these claims, and since the deadline for COBRA has passed for many if not all of the GTFs in this situation, the university may be financially liable because if its negligence for any and all medical expenses incurred by the GTF.
• In conclusion, the intentional actions of the university to prevent the GTFF from obtaining information relevant to bargaining and the execution and monitoring of the contract has violated the contract between the University of Oregon and the GTFF, impeded the operation of the GTFF and created serious problems for the administration of the GTFF insurance plan.
• At present, a "Step 3 Grievance," an internal mechanism to deal with contractual disputes, has been denied by Jan Oliver regarding the withholding of information for the administration of the insurance plan.
1. The next step in this process would be to pursue "arbitration" where the GTFF and the University of Oregon would have their cases heard before a mutually agreed upon arbitrator who would make a binding ruling on the issue.
2. Arbitration is lengthy and will not help ameliorate the problems outlined in this memo as the arbitration proceeds.
3. In fact at the end of the arbitration process, the university could just as easily violate the ruling of the arbitrator as it is currently violating the contract with the GTFF.
• As of Friday April 21, the GTFF has filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) with the Employment Relations Board (ERB).
1. On April 26,the ERB sent letters to President Frohnmayer and Chancellor Joe Cox informing them that the ULP was filed.
2. The ERB requested that President Frohmayer and Chancellor Cox respond with a statement of their position to the charges in the ULP by May 9.
• For a resolution to the problems outlined above, the GTFF demands that the university immediately release the information.
1. If the university perceives a problem with FERPA, it must quickly resolve the issue in a way that does not include release of information waivers which violate the rights of the GTFF to information necessary for the monitoring and execution of its contract with the University of Oregon.
2. The GTFF asks that all university community members ask questions and voice any concerns with the current situation to university officials including Dave Frohnmayer, Marian Friestad and Mark Zunich.
3. University community members may also contact the GTFF directly at 344-0832 and gtff@efn.org with any comments or questions.

---

Web page spun on 08 May 2000 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises