Minutes of the University Senate
The University Senate met in
regular session at
Members absent were:
Matt Bacon, Ernest Bailey*, Wendy Baldwin*, Michael Bardo*, Suketu
Bhavsar, Stan Brunn, Patricia Burkhart*, Frank Butler, Ben Carr, Michael
Cavagnero, James Cibulka, Alfred Cohen, Kate Davis*, Elizabeth Debski*, Jody
Deem*, Philip DeSimone, David Durant*, Walter Ferrier*, Lisa Gaetke*, Tony
Gentry, Philip Greasley, Don Gross*, Bob Grossman*, Steven Haist, Rachel Hardy,
Victor Hazard, Allison Hensley*, Kay Hoffman, James Holmes, Chester Jennings*,
J. David Johnson, James Kerley, Richard King*, Robert Kovarik, Phil Kraemer,
Thomas Lester, Leola McClure, Katherine McCormick*, Terry Mobley, David Mohney,
Sue Nokes*, Jacquelie Noonan*, Peter Perry, Martha Purdue*, Kenneth Roberts,
Jeanmarie Rouhier-Willoughby*, Sandy Schomaker, Anne Sharpe, Jason Shaw, Robert
Shay, Scott Smith, Veleashia Smith, Devanathan Sudharshan, Misty Swetnam,
Patricia Terrell, Lee Todd, Tate Tsang, Allan Vestal, Brian Wade*, Retia
Walker, Rachel Watts*, Carolyn Williams*, Eugene Williams, Emery Wilson, Don
Witt, Thomas Zentall.
*Excused Absences.
Chairperson Jeff Dembo called the meeting to order at
The Chair asked if there were
any corrections needed. Albisetti noted
an error in the date. Ms. Scott will
correct it. Otherwise the minutes were approved as written.
2. Announcements:
The Chair reminded the Senate
of the upcoming campus-wide all-faculty forums and encouraged all Senators to
attend.
The Chair noted the upcoming
Board and Senates’ Holiday Reception and said the Senate will co-partner with
the Staff Senate to host the event this year.
The Chair welcomed Chair Brothers from the Staff Senate and introduced
her to the Senate.
Tagavi announced the second
round ballots for the Senate Council elections will be distributed very
soon. He showed the Senators a sample
ballot and introduced the 6 semi-finalists.
3. Faculty Trustee Report
The Chair begged the
indulgence of the Senate to rearrange the agenda and yielded the floor to
Jones. Jones gave a brief presentation
on the history of faculty governance and its relationship to shared governance
at the University and discussed how current events could be framed within the
context of this history. Jones made
special note of the importance of faculty governance in the reorganization of
educational units (including multi-disciplinary research centers), revision of
the Governing Regulations and the overall relationship of the faculty to the
Board of Trustees. Jones gave credit to
the Provost for being helpful and fair in the recent iterations of GR revisions
and expressed his appreciation. Jones
thanked Albisetti for his recent gift of $50,000 to assist student
scholarships, which was accepted by the Board at its September meeting.
4. Procedures
for Discontinuation of Programs:
The Chair announced the item
and provided some history. Chard said
this item had been produced by a special committee because no guidelines
previously existed and it seemed as if guidelines would soon be needed in light
of the University’s financial situation.
She said the procedures would provide structure for the administration. Chard noted input received from the
administration during its review of the document and said many of their
recommendations had been incorporated into the finished piece. The Chair asked Chard to comment on the
portion of the document pertaining to centers and institutes. Chard noted the current ambiguity surrounding
how to define an educational unit and suggested an addendum to these procedures
might be added after the Academic Organization and Structure Committee has a
chance to define that term.
The Chair said the Senate
Council has already approved this item so a motion was already on the floor for
discussion or a vote. Tagavi noted the
absence of wording that should read “This proposal will be sent to the Rules
Committee to be codified as a Senate Rule”.
The Chair confirmed these procedures would indeed be forwarded to the
Rules Committee if the item is passed.
The Chair asked for discussion on the floor. There was none. The motion passed without dissent.
5.
The Chair asked the Senators
if they were willing to waive the ten-day rule in order to hear this item. He said the implication of not discussing
hearing the item at this meeting would mean it would not be heard by the Board
at its December meeting. The Chair added
the Senate Council had voted in favor of forwarding this item with a positive
recommendation given the amount of support it had received from all parties
involved within the college.
Chard provided the additional
information that the item had not come to the Senate further because of the
care taken by the college in the completion of the Senate’s routing sheet,
which was an item the Senate decided to require late in the Spring
semester. She said she hoped to use the
college’s routing sheet as an example for future cases or reorganization since
it was exceptionally well done.
Blandford moved to waive the ten day rule and
Gesund seconded the motion, which passed without dissent. Heidi Anderson, a representative from the
There was no further
discussion. The motion passed without dissent.
6. Retiree
Health Benefits Task Force Report:
The Chair introduced Joey
Payne, Tom Samuel and Dick Siemer, all of whom were present to address this
issue. The Chair outlined the path the
task force’s recommendation will follow and yielded the floor to Siemer.
Siemer presented some history
on the item and said a conclusion or final decision had yet to be reached, that
the purpose of the discussion was to glean advice and counseling from the
Senate, and noted not changing this benefit at this time may have adverse
affects on other budgetary areas at the University. Siemer introduced Samuel and yielded the
floor.
Samuel offered a brief
presentation and explained the need for the change both in terms of changes in
GASB’s policy and in terms of rising health care costs. Samuel said the hope of the task force was to
continue offering the benefit but to alter it in such a way as to keep it
affordable so the University could continue to offer it in the future. Samuel presented the Senate with some graphs
and figures to outline the various proposals in question. He then opened the floor for questions.
Arthur asked what data
contributed to the projections show in the presentation. Samuel replied the data and projections were
compiled by the consulting firm, Mercer.
Tagavi asked when HR Policy 90.1.3 became a policy and whether the
University considered retiree health benefits a liability. T. Lynn Williamson replied it had been
changed around 1990. Henry Clay Owen
said there was no legal commitment to retirees by the University to continue
offering this benefit, but if the benefit were to be continued the cost would
be included as an accounting liability on the books of the University. He added those benefits would have an
increased impact on future budgets.
Peffer questioned the use of the word liability, and Samuel agreed that
projection or budget item would both be more accurate terms to use.
Gesund asked if the task
force had considered the honor of the University and its commitment to its
employees when producing its report. He
expressed concern of how such a breach of faith between employer and employee
might hamper future recruiting efforts for both faculty and staff.
Samuel replied the task force
had come to the Senate, in an honorable way, to solicit these comments. He said the task force’s intention was to
consider their charge in the fairest possible manor and still be able to
continue offering the benefit in the future.
Johnson asked if the dollar
figures in the presentation were nominal or real. Samuel said those were today’s dollars. Johnson expressed concern that projections
made past eight to ten years may or may not be reliable and asked if the impact
of early retirement had been considered.
Samuel said the impact was minimal, and Payne noted discontinuing the
practice of early retirement would not make the liability for those retirees go
away.
Goldman presented a variety
of points regarding possible lost savings to the University if the proposal of
the task force were adopted. He said
faculty would be less likely to retire so the pool of insured would become
older. He supposed faculty salaries
would be tied up in older professors and would prevent the hire of young blood,
which would not help the University achieve its rise to prominence. He mentioned payroll tax and more costly
medical procedures as being two reasons to get faculty to retire on time rather
than staying later to avoid beginning to use their retiree health
benefits.
Samuel said the data and
projections used had drawn from private employers and acknowledged that faculty
may be different. He said he hoped
Mercer had considered that in making their projections. He said this is a valid point which the
administration should consider.
Steiner noted the difference
in pay between industry and education and suggested a comparison be done with
the institutions benchmarks rather than using industry projections. He also expressed concern for the staff members
of the University, who he feared were not as financially secure as faculty and
in many cases couldn’t afford the to purchase the insurance offered by the
University for their families, let alone plan for the eventuality of expended
benefits during their retirement. He
said the staff work here for the benefits since they could make more in the
private sector and speculated that many faculty and staff would leave for more
attractive positions if the proposal were to move forward. He also made mention of the disparity in
faculty salaries between the University and its benchmarks, noted the
benchmarks were not capping this benefit, and asked why the University should
pursue this plan at this time.
Samuel said the cap to
benefits was several years out before the expenditure of the benefit would be
realized. He cited the need for change
in the health industry at the federal level.
He suggested that a lack of change to the benefit at this time might
mean new employees would not have the opportunity to utilize the benefit at
all. Samuel added many of the benchmarks
don’t contribute to this benefit at all while others are part of their state’s
retirement system. He noted the
University will make this move prior to its benchmarks.
Siemer interrupted the
discussion for a moment to note comments should not be directed to Samuel as an
individual and said he felt certain Samuel was no less honorable for having
done the job he was asked to do. He
expressed support for the expertise Samuel brought to the task force.
Yanarella spoke as the Chair
of the Senate’s Ad Hoc Committee on Improving Faculty Salaries and expressed
the need for a total compensation package that will make the University more
competitive with the benchmarks which hold higher public university rankings. He expressed concern that a decrease in
benefit offerings would represent a step in the wrong direction. He cited meager salary increases, salary
compression and inversion and a lack of salary equity as some of the issues in
need of correction. Yanarella worried
the administration might seem hypocritical if the faculty who had the
responsibility of propelling the University toward new levels of excellence and
achievement did not receive the support it had earned during its years of loyal
service.
Cibull suggested further discussion
with the benchmarks was in order, and added there seemed to be no imperative to
deciding this issue immediately. He
hoped the University would not become number one in benefit rollback.
Samuel said the task force
had been given a charge to recommend the changes now. He said the thinking of the task force was
that a quick resolution would be more beneficial, so it had worked to be
affirmative rather than reactionary. Samuel
added his concern for employees on the lower end of the pay spectrum and said
he had made a motion during a task force meeting to make some changes for those
employees because they would be most affected by the suggestions. He noted additional changes may come from the
state legislature and other sources at any time that may prove a threat to the
existence of this or other benefits.
Cibull said ethical concerns
for the lower paid staff members should have been addressed before the report
was brought forward.
The Chair interrupted the
conversation for a moment to thank Siemer for his earlier remarks about the
importance of collegiality in a discussion such as this.
Albisetti noted the plan will
cost more in the future and asked if people would be encouraged to retire
early. Siemer replied there is no
short-term benefit to the University, but more of a long-term solution to the
University’s finances. He presumed an
initial bump in retirement numbers may occur, but said this did not represent a
revised retirement policy.
Govindarajulu asked what
plans were in effect to try to control the University’s health care costs. Samuel said the University has been
successful in controlling its current benefits through the self-insured
system. He said the University had no
control over what transpires with Medicare.
Braun asked how many low paid
staff members sat on the task for and why Samuel’s motion to make allowances
for low paid staff was voted down.
Samuel replied the real concern on the task force was for existing
retirees and for those who were closest to retirement since they have less time
to prepare for change. Those employees
further from retirement had more time to save.
Braun asked if means testing had been employed.
Payne replied by saying
people who have not already retired have time to earn more money, people who
are already retired have no earning opportunities, and said current employees
would know going into retirement they needed to save more.
Samuel expressed his concern
for those employees who were both low paid and close to retirement, saying they
were most disadvantaged, and citing his concern for them as his motivation in
making his motion.
Braun reiterated his
questions about the use of means testing and the number of lower paid staff
members on the task force. Samuel said
means testing had not been utilized, but added the task force could consider
doing so. He deferred to Brothers for
the remainder of the question.
Brothers said she was on the
task force, and that its two biggest concerns had been how the proposal would
affect the lowest paid employees and those closest to retirement since those
two groups have the least opportunity to change their savings plans. She said the proposal will probably hurt
staff but said they would at least have a chance to make decisions now about
their future savings.
The Chair asked if there were
opinions or positions that had not yet been broached. Garvey asked why the task force had put forth
scenario D in which the growth remains flat when the University’s budget would
continue to grow over time. She also
asked if the task force had considered trying to slow the growth over time
rather than flattening it completely.
Samuel replied there was no
clear way to draw a line that didn’t leave some group out and that no
guidelines exist on how to do such a thing in a fair way.
Peffer asked what percentage
of the University’s budget the projection figures represented. Samuel said the consultants were reluctant to
let the task force use the projection in question since projections beyond ten
years are difficult to predict. He added
he didn’t know what the University’s budget projections might be for this time
period.
Siemer said the University’s
budget would grow between six and ten percent every year, while the costs in
retiree health benefits were projected to grow in double-digit figures
annually.
Johnson suggested somebody
from the consulting group should have been included in this meeting to answer
some of the questions about the projection.
Tagavi asked if there was a
conflict of interest in the way the University negotiated with itself to use
its own healthcare system while also trying to determine what to charge its
retirees. Samuel said he was not aware
of a conflict of interest and said the alternative was to change to an insured
plan but warned against doing so because the amount spent on pharmaceuticals in
such plans is disproportionately high.
Gesund proposed a motion that the University Senate
rejects the report of the Retiree Health Benefits Task Force. Hahn seconded
the proposed motion. Jeng offered a
friendly amendment to say instead the University Senate does not endorse the
report of the Retiree Health Benefits Task Force. Brief discussion followed as to whether or
not to include rationale for the proposed motion within the motion. Goldman suggested allowing the Senate Council
to add rationale to the proposed motion later, which would then be voted upon
at the subsequent Senate meeting. The
Senators concurred with the suggestion.
The question was called and
the two-thirds vote need to stop debate was obtained. A straw vote was taken. The proposed motion passed. Four votes were cast
in opposition and there were three abstentions.
The motion will be sent to the Senate Council for the formation of
rationale and the item will appear as an action item on the December agenda.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40.
Respectfully submitted by Jeffrey
Dembo
Chair, Senate Council
Prepared by Rebecca
Scott on