Draft Minutes

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

10:00am – 12:00 noon

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Lisa Sporleder, Chair; President, Statewide Administration

Jeri Cary, President, UAS Staff Council

Mel Kalkowski, President, UAA APT Council

Bob Kizer, President-elect, UAA APT Council

Kimberly Stanford, President, UAA Classified Council

Betty Dupee, Vice President, Statewide Administration Assembly

Maya Salganek, President-elect, UAF Staff Council

Josh Steadman, President, UAF Staff Council

Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, System Governance

Hans Gunderson, Admin. Coordinator, System Governance

Jim Johnsen, Vice President, Human Resources

Mike Hostina, Associate General Counsel

Earlina Bowden, Director, UAF Campus Diversity and Compliance

Lori Merdes, Coordinator, IT Merger Project

Kate Ripley, Director, Public Relations

2. Adopt Agenda

MOTION: Moved by Salganek, seconded by Dupee, passed without objection

“The Staff Alliance moves to adopt the agenda for the May 10, 2005 meeting. This action is effective May 10, 2005.”

3. Approve April 5, 2005 minutes

http://gov.alaska.edu/staff/minutes/2005/04-05.html

MOTION: Moved by Dupee, seconded by Kalkowski, passed without objection

The Staff Alliance moves to approve the minutes from the April 5, 2005 meeting. This action is effective May 10, 2005.”

4 Chair’s report

I had an email conversation with someone last month about retirement issues. Perhaps I should have just ignored the whole thing, but I took the bait and responded to this message that said:

I am increasingly concerned about administration comments about "defined contribution" in our retirement plan. Of course, this is a vague way of stating that any future cost-increases will be borne solely by employees. It's a cost-shift strategy and it's one that the average UA employee simply does not have the discretion to allow. Retirement is coming for all of us, sooner or later, and the question is: how resourced vs impoverished will we be when we get there?

Several things about the email bothered me. Stating that any future cost increases will be borne solely by employees? I haven’t seen that happen yet. It’s the employer that has been saddled with the PERS/TRS increases, and those increases for the employer will continue even if the legislature decided employees must share that responsibility. Then talking about a “cost-shift strategy that the average UA employee simply does not have the discretion to allow”? What was that supposed to mean? So I responded with what I see as the reality of the situation. I said:

The Federal government is pushing for a defined contribution change to Social Security. The State of Alaska is pushing for a new PERS/TRS tier that would be defined contribution. The University is looking to expand ORP, a defined contribution plan already in existence here.

Even if the University's plan doesn't go through, defined contribution plans are the wave of the future for both public and private sector jobs. Any one of us who thinks they will be able to retire comfortably without socking a bit extra away somewhere, above and beyond the required employee/employer contributions to PERS/TRS and the UA Pension Plan, has their head in the sand.

We can do our best to guide the changes wisely, but the changes are going to come. Saying we don't want them won't change the outcome, other than to take time away from doing whatever we can to minimize the hit to staff. This is not just a UA problem. It's not just a state problem. It's not just a public sector problem. What leverage do you think that gives us to try to stop defined contribution plans from taking effect at the University of Alaska?

UA isn't going to have or get the money to maintain the status quo. I cannot in good faith just say "we don't want that change" when I know it is going to come anyway and that I can have a say in guiding it to be the least damaging change for staff as possible.

I think that even with a change in the retirement system, University employment is still a good deal, and people are still going to want to work here. I've talked with recent hires here at Statewide, and they tell me I have the right take on retirement issues and the reality of employment here in Alaska. In my own experience in the private sector, I was paying as much toward my health care in Chicago in 1989 as I was last year on the deluxe plan at UA. There was no vesting in the 401(k) program, which invested solely in company-owned stock, and you only got any retirement if you actually retired from the company. No life insurance. No automatic pay increases, step or COLA. No tuition benefits. A much less generous leave and holiday benefit. And the amount I was making as a college-educated, full-time employee was comparable to UA's Student IV pay scale at that time.

I will bring forward all the viewpoints that staff share with me, and I'm sure you are going to share more of yours with me. But honestly, I have to tell you that I'm more interested in a proactive approach to try to make the best changes we can than an ostrich approach of sticking my head in the sand and pretending that change can be prevented. I just don't see it that way.

Of all the things that could have been discussion points, I felt like most of my message fell on deaf ears. Here is the response I received:

Thanks for the note back. Objecting to an ongoing cost-shift which is clearly to the detriment of future UA retirees is more than justified. – I appreciate your relating your prior work-history in Illinois, clearly one well below the treatment you deserved. I am unaware of the proactive approach you mentioned regarding how to guide HR retirement-benefit changes.

At your early convenience. let me know as to details of the proactive approach you're suggesting. If useful, I'm sure you'll garner broad support.

So I thought, “Okay, I’ll spell it out for you.” I explained:

I was in a meeting just this morning with Jim Johnsen, Beth Behner, the Faculty Alliance chair, and union leaders to discuss the changes that seem to be inevitable. Meetings with this group will continue. Jim talked about restructuring and redefining the existing Retirement Committee. It is this committee that will likely be designing a modified ORP plan design for new UA employees (for FY07, not this coming July 1), and I am sure governance will have a place at that table. I'm staying in communication with Jim Johnsen as the university proceeds, and keeping Staff Alliance apprised when I receive new information.

At the meeting this morning, Jim talked about taking this year to modify the ORP, work out who will be using it, whether it is optional or mandatory, whether it will include paying into the new Health Savings Account system to provide some retirement medical funds (ORP currently has no medical benefit), who would contribute to that, etc. He specifically said that governance would be involved in the process, and as I'm in the same building, I can make sure that happens! Most of the things we talked about in the meeting I had previously discussed with Jim and shared with Staff Alliance at our April meeting. Since talks are just beginning, I don't have specifics for you.

Perhaps you don't agree, but to me, working with HR as these changes are being developed and trying to guide them toward the best options given the current situation, is taking a proactive approach. It's also doing what governance was set up to do! I believe that by working with the Administration as the process develops, governance will be able to help shape a new UA retirement tier and make sure future employees have retirement options that they can make work for them. But I have no doubt a new tier is going to happen, and that it will be a defined contribution type of plan. Everything I've heard out of the state legislature so far demands such a change. If you hear otherwise, please let me know. I'd love to hear about it!

Everyone isn't going to get everything they want. I'm in this thing because I care that staff aren't the only ones giving up something. To the best of my ability, I will keep Staff Alliance involved in the process to keep that from happening. Does that sound like a sensible way to proceed to you?

I guess that appeased, or my verbosity exhausted, the staff member because in response I received only:

Thx for the note so quickly. I've read it over carefully. It sounds like, at present, talks are just getting started and that you're doing the best that you can.

Now, nearly a month later, talks are still going on in the legislature. Retirement is one of the topics Murkowski wants settled in an extended session he called for yesterday. There’s been one more meeting of the retirement group, and it was spelled out that the president or designee of faculty and staff governance and the unions will all have a seat at the table for the restructured Retirement Committee, and that this committee may look at policy issues as well as a modified ORP. Change is going to happen, but I feel that Staff Alliance really is in a good position to help guide that change.

5. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

6. Staff Governance Reports - SW, UAS, UAA, UAF

Statewide – The Statewide Administration Assembly has completed its elections and the new members notified, but the results have not yet been made public. SAA meets tomorrow to discuss the draft Butrovich Building guidelines which have stirred quite a bit of interest.

UAS – The UAS Staff Council has completed its elections which were held on-line. Jeri Cary is the new president and Jana Ring the new vice president. UAS Staff Development Day is tomorrow.

UAA – After three years, Mel Kalkowski is stepping down as president of the UAA APT Council and is being replaced by Bob Kizer. Kizer stated that the UAA Staff Development Day is also tomorrow. Kim Stanford reported that the UAA Classified Council had elected her president for another year. Governance will have an information booth at Staff Development Day. The UAA Faculty Senate has taken the lead in the common start date issue. Governance is working on developing a newsletter and passed a resolution in support of the new Student Regent.

UAF – The UAF Staff Council met with the chancellor regarding the elimination of tuition waivers for seniors. Results were not very encouraging.

7. Employee Relations

7.1 Audits – Jim Johnsen

This item was not discussed.

7.2 Common Start Date – Craig Dorman

This item was not discussed.

7.3 Mediation Project – Mike Hostina/Earlina Bowden

Earlina Bowden reported that UAF has had one request for mediation. It is going forward. The service will have five different levels. The UAF group is looking for assistance. Bowden will be training advisors and peer advisors and student advisors for student issues

Sporleder asked if the grievance clock can be stopped in order to have mediation. Hostina feels that for now the regulation should not be changed and that the person with the grievance request suspension from the responsible administrator for the mediation program.

Salganek felt that people would not enter into a mediation program if they had to file a grievance.

Hostina said the person has nine weeks to file a grievance and mediation should only take but a few weeks. The employer has an interest in seeing that a grievance be handled in a timely matter.

Kizer asked about the numbers of grievances the university has per year Hostina responded that at his level he sees about 3 per year. Bowden stated that she had seen about five formal grievances per year formal and about 50 complaints per year.

7.4 Staff/supervisor training recommendations

Jim Johnsen reported that the staff/supervisor training project is moving forward this summer.

7.5 UA Health Plan numbers

The open enrollment period has been extended to May 27. The tuition waiver is not currently a retirement benefit. The wellness project has been stalled but will move forward again this fall. The wellness task force will meet again some time in June.

7.7 IT Merger – Lori Merdes

Lori Merdes presented a draft of the merger structure. The university is bringing a retiree as the merger consultant and Merdes will work as the coordinator of the project. There is some overlap in the structure but these are a structure of functions and not people.

Merdes said there are many functions that Statewide IT handles systemwide IT and is looking for comments from the other campuses as it has been a priority of the work group to not have any form of reduction of services to the other campuses. The consultant will not be on board until July, and with implementation by fall.

Merdes asked for feedback on any part of the plan. It is important that the comments are made not anecdotally but in written form. The merger group is doing what it can to retain the same number of positions but some of the positions may be re-deployed to other areas of IT.

7.8 Other employee relations issues

The proposed on-line job applications and on-line open enrollment project deadlines have been extended. PERS/TRS bills are in the works. If the operating budget passes as is, the staff salary grid will be adjusted upward by 2 percent.

8. Advocacy

8.1 Legislative Update

Ivey reported that the university will get the five percent increase in the operating budget but this does not include the funds to cover the university’s retirement deficit. The capital budget is up to 200 million and contains everything the university has asked for and the items from the Stevens bill.

8.2 Employee Communications – Kate Ripley

Ripley reported that the draft position description of the communications position is going through the HR process now. The position will be based out of public affairs with the concentration on employee communication. The position will work closely with HR. The person in the position will be charged with the development of an employee communications plan. The position has support from the executive levels. The Staff Alliance wanted the position to work closely with staff governance.

8.3 Other advocacy items

There were no other advocacy items

9. Agenda items for next meeting, Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Agenda items may include, but may not be limited to approval of the 2005-2006 calendar, retirement, and other items of interest.

10. Other items of interest

There were no other items of interest.

11. Comments

There were no additional Comments

12. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 11:57am.