Draft Minutes
10:00 am –
- Public participation is
welcome.
- Please do not disrupt
proceedings when the meeting is in progress
1. Call to order and roll call
Members Present:
Lisa Sporleder, President
Lori Merdes, Vice President
Isabel Martinez, Secretary
Nikki Blake
Tami Choquette
Betty Dupee
Alicia Wyse for Larry McGrady
Bess Rounds
Others Present:
Pat Ivey, Executive Officer,
System Governance
Jodi Bailey, Administrative
Coordinator, System Governance
Debra Carter, Employee
Communications Specialist
2. Adopt
agenda
http://gov.alaska.edu/saa/agendas/2006/01-11.pdf
MOTION:
Passed without objection moved by Betty Dupee and seconded by Alicia Wyse.
“The Statewide Administrative
Assembly moves to adopt the agenda for the
3. Approve
minutes of December 15, 2005 meeting
http://gov.alaska.edu/saa/minutes/2005/12-15.htm
http://gov.alaska.edu/saa/minutes/2005/12-15.pdf
MOTION:
Passed without objection moved by Tami Choquette and seconded by Betty Dupee.
“The Statewide Administrative
Assembly moves to adopt the minutes for the
4. Guest/Public
Comments
No
public comments.
5. Staff
Lisa
read her chair report from the Staff Alliance meeting.
A week from Friday, I am going to the special HR
Committee meeting of the Board of Regents that has been called to discuss the
new retirement options that will be available to new university employees
effective this July 1. By the end of the
meeting today, I need to be sure of where this body stands on those
options. To further my own understanding,
I attended a PERS/TRS retirement seminar at Noel Wien Library last month. When I got there, I found it was sponsored by
AARP, speakers leaned heavily on the side of unionized teachers, and the
seminar was attended by Gary Wilken and Mike Kelly, though only Senator Wilken
spoke. Because of the
In our past discussions of the new PERS/TRS tiers, we
have been repeatedly told that the medical benefit of the plans is a
defined-benefit portion of these otherwise defined-contribution retirement
plans. Throughout the seminar, I kept
hearing that medical was a defined-contribution benefit. When I was able to ask the question, and was
shown the information, I was able to see that both sides were presenting the
facts as they see them, and the truth is in the middle. The new tiers’ medical benefits are a hybrid
of defined benefit and defined contribution.
The way I see it, the plans accrue health care dollars as a defined
contribution plan, but allow the retiree to use the accrued health savings
account to buy into the state’s defined-benefit health care plan. There is no guarantee that there will be
enough money accrued to cover buying into the plan all the years they may need
until Medicare kicks in, and I don’t know exactly what happens when Medicare
does begin. I’m assuming that without
enough money to continue to buy into the state’s plan, the retiree will have no
automatic secondary insurance, as retirees of earlier tiers will.
The defined-benefit health care portion of the new PERS
tier has been the basis for the university’s insistence on conditioning the UA
Pension Plan to selection of NORP II. I
have previously said I thought it was unfair to force a new employee to choose
between a retirement pension and a retirement health plan. But it is not that black-and-white. Once again, we are shrouded in veils of
gray. The truth seems to be a new
employee must choose between the option to buy into the state’s retirement
health plan as long as the Health Savings Account lasts on the PERS plan vs.
the UA Pension plan and the option to buy into any other retirement health plan
as long as the Health Savings Account or VEBA lasts under NORP II. The questions that are shrouded in gray for
me are: What kind of health plans will
even exist in July 2016 (the earliest someone could retire from the new PERS
tier with their health benefit intact)?
How much will the state charge Tier 4 retirees each year to buy into its
health plan? How much money can there
possibly be left over after buying into a health plan for however many years is
needed, to cover the medical expenses NOT covered by the plan? Without a crystal ball to answer these and
similar perplexing questions, it is very difficult to support one retirement
option over the other. I need your help
to know what to relay to the Board’s HR Committee next week.
Staff
6. Senior
Tuition Waiver Regulation
http://www.alaska.edu/bor/contents/pt5.xml
No
comments.
7. IT
Merger
http://www.alaska.edu/itmerger/
Lori stated that the new reporting
structure became effective
They are also creating a five-year
business plan with help from an outside consultant, to discuss the costs of the
merger. The plan is scheduled to be
completed by the beginning of March when there will be a meeting with the CITO
to finalize it.
Currently, the staff of OIT has
governance support being determined by their budgets, and it is planned to
remain that way until the budgeting situation changes.
OIT, with permission from the
President, is creating a statewide IT Advisory Committee, which will be comprised
of a variety of peers who will discuss the merger.
8. NORP
II – New Retirement Program
The group would like a detailed
description of the new NORP II and compare it to the current plans being
offered. The Pension plan will only be offered
to new employees who choose the NORP II plan.
The health care that will be offered, will likely be a VEBA (volunteer
employee benefit account) or a HSA (health savings account) that the employee
can use when they reach retirement.
9. Canned
The
Food Bank received 316 lbs this year from the annual canned food drive.
10. Agenda Items for the Next Meeting –
Senior Tuition Waiver Regulation, IT Merger, NORP II,
Employee Awards, 2006 Nominations for SAA, Make Students Count Award, Butrovich
Air Quality
11. Member Comments
No member comments.
12. Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at