General Faculty Meeting Friday September 16, 2016 Agenda · 2016. 9. 7. · General Faculty Meeting Page 1 September 16, 2016 General Faculty Meeting Friday September 16, 2016 Gonzaga

General Faculty Meeting Page 1September16,2016

General Faculty Meeting

Friday September 16, 2016

Gonzaga Auditorium, 3:30-5 pm

Agenda

1. Announcements

2. Approval of the minutes of a. 4/15/16 (attachment, pages 2-10) b. 5/4/16 (attachment, pages 11-12) c. 5/31/16 (attachment, pages 13-21)

3. Introduction of New Faculty

4. Remarks by the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

5. Adjournment

The meeting will be followed by a lovely reception

in the Kelley Center

hosted by Provost and SVPAA Babington

to welcome our new colleagues and toast the new academic year


Fairfield University Fairfield University

General Faculty Meeting April 15, 2016

Draft Minutes of Meeting These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

Proxies were held by: for: Bob Epstein Beth Boquet Johanna Garvey Emily Orlando Paula Gill Lopez Emily Smith Paula Gill Lopez Pat Calderwood Amanda Harper-Leatherman John Miecznikowski Sonya Huber Betsy Bowen Sonya Huber Carol Ann Davis Mary Frances Malone Christine Siegel Laura Nash Marice Rose Susan Rakowitz Joe Dennin Susan Rakowitz Paul Lakeland Vin Rosivach Jo Yarrington David Zera Jule McCombes-Tolis David Zera Paul Maloney

Chair Alison Kris called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.

1. Announcements-

Professor Jocelyn Boryczka announced that the FWC would be meeting after this meeting. She was excited to talk about taking some actions and addressing the pressing issues before us now. She also announced the labor forum hosted by Fairfield University Workers United on April 21.

GFS Susan Rakowitz announced the Rank and Tenure Information Session on May 4.

2. Approval of the minutes of 3/18/16

Motion [Caster/Weiss]: to approve the minutes of 3/18/16. The motion passed unanimously.

3. Report from the Faculty Salary Committee

Faculty Salary Committee (FSC) Chair Chris Bernhardt began with an announcement that the AAUP figures came out on Monday. As can be seen in the attached slides, Professors were above the 95th percentile by $208, Associates were above by over $1000, and Assistants were below by $1919. According to the MOU, Assistant Professors will receive $1919 for this contract year and it will be added to their base salaries next year. He noted that while it's nice to get extra money, this means that faculty in the Assistant rank were underpaid this year and will be just at the 95th percentile next year. If the administration's latest proposal were enacted, that would likely drive both Professors and Assistants below the 95th percentile next year.

He went on to review the history of concessions by employees on health insurance. Before 2010, health insurance was covered at no cost. In 2010, we agreed to cost share 10% of the premiums. In 2014, we agreed to increase our share to 20%. Somehow, in 2015, the cost to employees increased by 14.4%, while the cost to the administration increased by only 2.5%. Some faculty actually saw their take home pay decrease that year. At the beginning of 2016, we agreed to increase deductibles by $500 for singles and $1000 for two or more.

Turning to the recent history of costs to the university, he showed that costs have decreased from $11,199,087 in 2013 to $9,307,832 in 2015. That decrease is partly because costs have shifted to employees and partly because people have left the plan. The next slide shows detailed numbers for 2015. The year


began with a healthcare budget of about $15 million. The employees' 20% cost share is about $3 million. Total costs came to just over $12 million, leaving a surplus of $2,767,336. That entire surplus was taken by the administration; none was returned to employees.

So far in 2016, the first two months of data show a surplus of $518,842. All evidence points to a substantial surplus again this year. If we were an insurance company, this degree of over-budgeting would be illegal. Because we're self-insured, those laws don't apply, and the administration says they can spend the surplus however they want.

Returning to the previous slide showing the decrease in healthcare costs to the institution since 2013, the administration argued that because fewer people are now covered, we should look at the cost per person covered rather than overall spending. The FSC did that, using the seven years of data provided by the administration. They found that the cost per person has decreased 3.3%, while tuition has gone up over 22.6% in that same time period. Healthcare as a percent of budget may be decreasing faster than any other item. There is no healthcare crisis, and that's mainly because of employee sacrifices.

Prof. Bernhardt reminded the faculty that the joint faculty/administrative Health Care Committee (HCC) did not recommend any changes to health insurance for the next MOU/BPO. Also, at the last General Faculty meeting, the General Faculty took the position that there is no reason to enact any changes to health insurance in the next MOU/BPO.

At the time of the last General Faculty meeting, the administration's proposal was to eliminate the PPO, leaving only HSA options. The administration said they heard the Faculty's objections, so they returned this week with a substantially changed PPO. The cost share would stay at 20% for employees, but would go to 30% for dependents. That means that employees with families covered by our insurance would see their take home pay go down if they make less than about $110,000 and if we get a 1.5% raise. These changes would, therefore mostly affect those with lower salaries and with families. It's incredibly regressive- the lower your current salary, the bigger the cut will be.

Prof. Bernhardt then went through the rest of the details of this latest proposal. The deductible that just went into effect this year would increase by $500 for singles and $1000 for families. The out of pocket maximum would improve slightly for in-network expenses, but both the deductible and the out of pocket maximum for out-of-network expenses would increase. Finally, the proposal would introduce 20% co-insurance for in-network expenses. In other words, employees would pay 20% of actual costs rather than a co-pay. The co-insurance for out-of-network expenses would increase from 20% to 30%. The HSA would also introduce co-insurance- 10% after the deductible has been met to an out of pocket maximum of $3000 for singles and $6000 for two or more. There are no changes proposed for out of network expenses in the HSA.

In summary, Prof. Bernhardt explained that we do not have an MOU at this time. We are well behind schedule; we should approve an MOU before the March Board of Trustees meeting. There is no health insurance emergency to justify drastic cuts. The administration only sent their current proposal to the FSC three days ago, and they never sent it to the HCC. There is no rationale for the changes; they simply shift costs to employees. If the administration believes the changes have merit, they should send their data and rationale to the HCC to examine.

Looking to the future, the FSC is willing to continue meeting until Commencement. They want to reach agreement, but it's looking doubtful. They don't see the point of another General Faculty meeting unless they have an MOU to present. Prof. Bernhardt noted that we never call a General Faculty meeting when we're off contract i.e., after the end of May. Our health insurance continues unchanged until January of 2017. Our current contract letters say that the 2015-2016 MOU continues until superseded by a subsequent MOU. The FSC has been in contact with the attorney paid for by the Faculty Welfare Committee (FWC). Finally, the Handbook specifies that the FSC is to review the text of contract letters before they are sent to the faculty, so the administration shouldn't be sending anything out without going through the FSC.

Prof. Bernhardt asked that faculty offer feedback by emailing him and keep an eye out for a possible survey from the FSC. He asked that faculty be patient and support the FWC. He said that the FSC has presented logical, data-driven, ethical arguments. The administration responds only by arguing that what they're doing


isn't illegal. We're fighting on the grounds of fairness and will probably need some actions from the FWC to continue this fight.

At this point, several members of the FSC and/or HCC offered their perspectives. Prof. Sonya Huber, a member of both committees, said that it has been frustrating to sit for hours in those meetings all year, carefully considering data which ended up being not at all relevant to the administration's final offer. The people in the meetings seemed to be making good efforts, but there seemed to be driving forces outside of the meetings. She said that she would be looking at a pay cut under the current proposal, and noted that in her first few years, sitting through meetings like this, she worried that she had taken the wrong job. But she found that the faculty here are very organized. We demand accountability and transparency because we're organized. This isn't a crisis. The FSC isn't going to recommend signing anything against our interests; we're willing to wait.

Prof. Bob Epstein, a member of the FSC, echoed Prof. Huber's frustration. He said that almost all of us were here last year, going through the same thing. We are coming to the end of the year and President von Arx won't address us as has been tradition since time immemorial. Presumably he won't do so because he considers this a disrespectful body, but the administration's offers are very disrespectful. He said that last year he had asked the President whether the administration was looking for changes in healthcare in order to save everybody money or whether they were looking for ways to displace the burden onto employees. The President's response was that they were looking for ways to reduce costs for everyone, not shift costs. That has not been borne out this year. Prof. Epstein said that he didn't know if President von Arx meant what he said, but that nothing about how the administration approaches healthcare makes that point valid. They frame the argument by claiming that health insurance changes are necessary for the health of the institution and that they want all of us to be more informed consumers of healthcare. There are layers of baloney in both claims. Clearly the numbers show no health care or financial crisis. Spending on healthcare is going down because we have taken up so much of the burden, yet they're insisting on drastic cuts in health benefits. They have not let up or shown consideration.

As for incentivizing informed behavior, Prof. Epstein said that healthcare is not a consumer product like other consumer products. People don't shop around for the cheapest x-ray. And they shouldn't necessarily want the cheapest x-ray, just like people shouldn't necessarily want the cheapest college. Furthermore, the proposal raises the cost of out of network services, presumably to disincentivize the use of out of network services. But those services are already disincentivized. Some people need those services; they will still go, they will just have to pay more. Finally, there's no reason to separate employees from dependents- there's no way to frame that as making us more informed consumers of healthcare. It's simply shifting the burden- it's less fair and more penalizing. The administrative representatives have acknowledged that their proposal just shifts costs to employees, so why are they insisting on these cuts? Prof. Epstein said that he didn't know, but it wasn't to reduce overall spending at the university. They just want to prioritize other things. That's shown in the budgeting and everything the university does. If we go along with it, there are no limits to how much they'll ask for in the future.

Prof. Walter Hlawitschka said that he was not on the FSC, but on the HCC, which was chaired by the Provost. They had rational, reasonable discussions, including some discussion of the necessity for the PPO. When the faculty asked what the savings from cutting the PPO would be, the administrative representatives said that the PPO costs less than the HSA, but that they believe that over time, people on the HSA will change their behavior. There's no evidence for this speculation; perhaps people have made behavior changes for the worse. Through consultants, the HCC found that most comparable institutions have multiple plans, including a PPO. The HCC saw no need for changes to healthcare, but that didn't carry over to the salary discussions.

He went on to say that the proposed changes are unacceptable. Costs are going down, but the amount that individuals are paying is going up. Last year healthcare was over-budgeted by $2.7 million. If that surplus was divided by the 749 people on our plan, each person on the plan was overcharged by more than $3000. If the administration reduced the numbers reported to AAUP to account for the surplus, Assistants would be getting a $5000 true-up this year. Similarly, more accurate budgeting would mean a true-up for Associates of


about $2500, and about $3500 for Professors. The administration lets no crisis go unused. Healthcare isn't a problem, it's a profit center.

He then asked why the latest proposal for healthcare changes didn't go to the HCC. He didn't know, but we can't accept this proposal. We're currently paying 20% of a phantom amount, we should not agree to pay 30% of a phantom amount. Over the last 7 years, costs per person have come down- we're doing a better job of saving money and bearing more of the costs ourselves. He said, I agreed to pay 20%- I'll pay it and if we are under budget, I'll pay 20% of the difference; it's what I agreed to. The administration says they have to overcharge because if they undercharge, they won't get the money back. This year, two months into the new deductible, there is again a surplus. The new proposal isn't about saving us from runaway healthcare costs. We've made this argument with the numbers the administration has provided; they're not disputing the numbers. The administration is just trying to cut compensation to faculty. It's not about healthcare. The HCC agreed on no changes to healthcare; this is just about cutting benefits.

At this point, the floor was opened to questions. Prof. Ron Salafia offered a quick statement. He said that our colleagues are being as straightforward and rational as they can be, and we're all being foolish in expecting the same kind of rationality and logic from the administration. There's no logic- they'll just keep kicking us.

Prof. Chris Staecker asked about how or whether the changes in healthcare are related to the AAUP benchmark. Prof. Bernhardt said that this year's reporting to AAUP is more accurate so cutting healthcare would probably push at least two ranks below the 95th percentile. Prof. Staecker asked which numbers go into the reporting. Prof. Bernhardt explained that they report the actual amount paid out by the university so if, for example, co-pays go up, the university's costs would go down, as would the amount reported to AAUP.

Prof. Kathy Nantz said that she has sat out some of these conversations regarding compensation in the last few years because the emotional toll that it takes every April is increasingly unacceptable. At this point every year we come for our collective flogging. She said that last year at the President's address she begged him for a multi-year contract to no avail. At a time when our employer is expecting our good will to help pull in a new class and bid farewell to a class we hope will become donors, we are again collectively flogged by a contract offer that's offensive. She appreciated the fact that Prof. Huber hasn't concluded that she's taken the wrong job. But she said, I'm in my 30th year here and I'm increasingly wondering whether there's another place I should be putting my shoulder to the wheel. We have to impose a cost upon the administration when they make these unilateral offers that include such extreme diminutions in our health care benefits; they do this every year because we don't impose a cost upon the administration for their behavior. She urged the faculty to think about all of the things we do beyond our contractual obligations. Think about how we might collectively impose a cost while still working to our contract; they're doing this because they can get away with it. We continue to work with students outside of class, come to admitted students days, write letters of recommendation, plan parties for students in our honor societies. We don't have to do those things in order to honor our contracts. In 2010 when we agreed in a moment of trust to share the burden of a financial crisis that was international in scope, we did it under the mistaken notion that in bad times we would share and in good times we would share. She continued, I'm feeling betrayed by that moment when I agreed to trust that Fairfield was the kind of place where agreeing to share a burden would mean agreeing to share good times. Our decision to take the promise of institution-provided health benefits out of our Faculty Handbook was done against the recommendation of our attorney and AAUP consultants, and I'm regretting it. At the FWC meeting after this meeting, we need to think about how to impose costs.

Prof. Vin Rosivach said that the most depressing part of this proposal is, as Prof. Bernhardt pointed out, the fact that it targets younger faculty, faculty with children and faculty in the lower ranks. He said, in an institution that speaks about the importance of social justice, and as someone who takes that seriously, I'm heartbroken. People who are driving this show and making decisions are laughing at us for taking social justice seriously. He said he would like to ask the decision makers what they think Pope Francis would have to say about their actions.


Prof. Boryczka echoed Prof. Nantz' notion of imposing costs. She said in preparation for the FWC meeting, people should be considering specific job actions. She noted the upcoming NEASC accreditation process and a variety of other events.

Prof. Paula Gill Lopez expressed puzzlement about the administrators want to make this changes when they have the same health insurance as we do. Prof. Epstein said that the decision makers are making the most so they would be the least affected. He said that if the goal was to affect behavior, the people who make the most should pay the most in co-pays.

Prof. Chris Huntley suggested changing the process to book savings from healthcare directly into the compensation pool. That would solve some of the other problems. There would then be no incentive for the administration to decrease healthcare.

Prof. Danke Li expressed concerns not just about increasing costs, but about decreasing quality. She said that Anthem covered things like yellow fever shots and anti-malarials needed for travel abroad. Aetna does not cover those things. With the university encouraging global citizenship, this change isn't just a personal issue, it also affects job performance.

Prof. David McFadden thanked the committee for the unassailable case they made to reject the administration's offer. He said we need to spend more time on what we're going to do and we need solidarity and overwhelming support for any actions. We should spend our time discussing actions.

Prof. Irene Mulvey said that she had three points to make and then a motion. She noted that here we are again, after another year of bad faith. She said the year has been especially difficult for our colleagues on the FSC, and an incredible waste of their time. They've been meeting all year long, and then just got this proposal three days ago. She clarified that we shouldn't paint all administrators with a broad brush. But the decision makers, whoever they are, are acting in bad faith and behaving unfairly. They are focusing solely on the bottom line, at the expense of academics, at the expense of our core academic mission, at the expense of the ability to attract and retain excellent faculty, at the expense of junior faculty and of lower paid staff, especially lower paid employees with families. She has given 100% to this institution for 31 years. She finds it compelling when Prof. Rosivach, who has been here 20 years longer than she has, calls this proposal and its effect on lower paid employees, "heartbreaking". There is no rationale for these changes and, worse, not even the pretense of a rationale being presented. The circumvention of the HCC, on which she served in the spring, is wrong. And also this year, President von Arx has unilaterally ended the decades long tradition of the University President addressing the General Faculty with his State of the University address, and taking questions.

Motion [Mulvey/Steffen]: The General Faculty directs the FSC to meet with the President to convey the General Faculty's concerns. The motion carried with one opposed.

Prof. Nantz asked whether it was acceptable for the President to unilaterally decide not to address the Faculty this year. If he finds it unproductive, that suggests there's a problem he needs to solve.

Motion [Nantz/Keenan]: That the General Faculty invites the President to reconsider and make his annual address to the Faculty on the second reading day as usual.

Prof. Rosivach said he thought that there has been a presidential address at the start or end of the academic year for all of the 50+ years he's been at Fairfield. Prof Salafia, also a 50-year veteran, concurred.

Prof. Salafia said that the motion was too polite; we should be demanding that the President speak to the Faculty.

Motion to amend [Salafia/Huber]: replace "invites the President to reconsider and" with "demands that the President" Motion to amend carried, 44-22-8


Prof. Peter Bayers said that if the goal is to get him here, he's not going to come if we demand it. If the point is just to send a message, I respect that.

Prof. Mulvey said that she wasn't so worried about word choice. The point is to convey the Faculty's reaction to the President's unilateral action. She hoped the minutes would reflect the testimony from our two members of the 50-year club that this tradition has gone on for at least 50 years.

Prof. Boryczka, speaking as a political scientist, said that the President's address is akin to a State of the Union address given by the President of the U.S. This address provides the only opportunity when the President highlights the successes and accomplishments of the University, but also takes questions from the faculty about issues critical to our entire community. We're the body he needs to report out to. He has shut down the one opportunity when we can speak directly to him, ask questions about the university, and express our concerns directly to him, rather than filtered through other administrators. This President should be held accountable for exactly what was reported to us today. We would like to hear from him directly how the current decisions regarding our health care, for instance, align with Jesuit values and the powerful principles espoused by Pope Francis.

Prof. Marcie Patton agreed with Prof. Bayers- if we really want any hope that the President will actually come, the word "demand" is counterproductive.

Prof. Salafia accused the Faculty of being wimpy again. He said that we should demand, and take action if he refuses. If the President doesn't come, he's slapping us in the face again.

Prof. Lucrecia Garcia Iommi said that she favored using wimpy words in dialogue. A cordial invitation shows that we are open to dialogue. We should also take action at the same time, rather than waiting for him not to show up.

Prof. David Zera said that he agreed with Prof. Nantz about the disillusionment that engulfs us every April. He is 100% behind Prof. Salafia and in support of the motion. He is proud of the Faculty today saying that this isn't acceptable and being willing to put ourselves out there to do what's right.

Prof. Nantz said that she was in favor of the motion and agreed with Prof. Zera. Five years ago, politely inviting would have been an appropriate response, but we've been polite for years. For one party in a conversation to decide the conversation isn't productive is a problem. She said that she found the conversation very productive last year; she learned about the administration's positions from what the President said and from what he did not say.

Prof. McFadden spoke strongly in favor of the motion. He hoped that if the President doesn't accede, the Faculty organize a sit-in in his office.

Motion [Abbott/Massey]: to call the question. Motion passed. Motion as amended: That the General Faculty demands that the President make his annual address to the Faculty on the second reading day as usual. Motion carried, 59-18-3.

4. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn [Epstein/Johnson] was uncontested at 4:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty


HistoryofConcessionsbyEmployees

•  Before2010:HealthInsurancecoveredtheemployee,spouse&dependentchildrenatnocosttotheemployee

•  Beginning2010:Facultyagreedto“cost-share”10%ofpremiums

•  Beginning2014:Facultyagreedtoincrease“cost-share”to20%

•  In2015:Costtoemployeeincreasedby14.4%;CosttoUniversityincreasedbyonly2.5%

•  Beginning2016:FacultyagreedtoincreaseddeducLbles:$500forsingle&$1000for2+

RecentHistoryofHealthCareCoststotheUniversity

Year CosttotheUniversity

2013 $11,199,087

2014 $10,744,342

2015 $9,307,832

DetailedFinalNumbersfor2015GrossBudgetforMedical: $15,093,960

AmountcontributedbyEE(20%ofbudget)):

$3,018,792

Amount"contributed"byER(80%ofbudget):

$12,075,168

TotalCosts(includingoverhead): $12,326,624

ActualCost-Sharesplit:

Employeespaid24.5%ofcostsEmployerpaid75.5%ofcosts

Surplus(is18.3%ofbudget):

$2,767,336

AmountreturnedtoUniversity $2,767,336

AmountreturnedtoEmployees $0

Numberssofarin2016:

•  January&February:Surplusestotaling$518,842AllsignspointtoasubstanBalsurplusagainthis

year•  Theuniversity’sposiBonisthatanysurplusistheirmoneyandcanbespenthowevertheywant.

•  TheFSC’sunderstandingisthatthiswouldbeillegaliftheUniversitywasaregulatedinsurancecompany.


HealthCareCostsAreNotIncreasing

•  AmountspentbytheUniversityperpersononhealthcaredecreasedbyabout3.3%overthepast7years

•  Duringthissameperiod,tuiAonincreasedbyover22.6%.•  Healthcare,asapercentoftheUniversity’sbudget,is

probablydecreasingfasterthananyotheritem.•  ThereisnohealthcarecrisisatFairfield,mainlyduetothe

sacrificesemployeeshavemadeyearaGeryearaGeryear.•  ThejointHCCdidnotrecommendanychangestohealth

insuranceforthenextMOU/BPO

Mo#onfromlastGFM

TheGeneralFaculty’sposi4onisthatthereisnoreasontoenactanychangestohealthinsuranceinthenextMOU/BPO.

Administra*on’sproposalpresentedon4/12/16

Majorchanges:•  Substan*alincreasesindeduc*blesforPPO.•  Addi*onofco-insurance•  Changestopremiums

Administra+on’sproposalpresentedon4/12/16

Premiums 2016 2017

Employeecost-share 20% 20%

Dependentcost-share 20% 30%

PPOproposalindetailIn-Network 2016 2017

Deduc2ble 500/1,000 1,000/2,000

OOPMax 2,500/5,000 2,000/4,000

Co-insurance/co-pay

$30/30/100/200 20%

Out-of-Network

Deduc2ble

700/1,400 2,000/4,000

OOPMax

2,500/5000

3,500/7000

Co-insurance

20% 30%

ChangestoHSA1In-network 2016 2017

Deduc3ble 2,000/4,000 2,000/4,000

OOPmax 2,000/4,000 3,000/6,000

Co-insurance None 10%

Contribu3on 1,000/2,000 1,000/2,000

NochangestoOut-of-networkcosts


Summary•  WedonothaveanMOUtopresenttotheGFatthis8me.•  TheMOUshouldbeapprovedbeforetheMarchBoardof

Trusteesmee8ng.•  Thereisnohealthinsuranceemergencythatnecessitates

thesesudden,dras8ccutstoourhealthbenefits.•  Theadministra8onneversentanyproposedhealth

insurancechangestotheHealthCareCommiEee.•  Wehaveseennora8onaleforthesechanges.Thechanges

onlyshiFmoreofthecosttotheemployee.•  Iftheadministra8onbelievesthesechangeshavemerit,

thechangeswithra8onaleandsuppor8ngdatashouldbesenttotheHealthCareCommiEeefordiscussionfornextyear.

So,nowwhat?

•  FSCwillcon0nuetomeetun0lCommencement.•  FSCwantstoreachagreementwithadministra0ononfaculty’sbehalf.

•  WewillaskGFStocallanothermee0ngonlyifwehaveanMOUforwhichwerecommendapproval.

•  NOTE:GFMee0ngsarenevercalledwhenGeneralFacultyarenotoncontract.

Wheredoesthatleaveus?

•  HealthInsurancecon3nuesun3l1/1/2017.•  “ThetermsreferredtointheMemoof

Understanding,onFacultySalaryandBenefits,

2015-2016,willapplyfromSeptember1,2015and

con3nueun3lsupersededbyasubsequentMemoof

Understanding,…”[currentcontractleRer]

•  WeareincontactwiththeARorneypaidforbyFWC.

•  “iii.toreviewthetextoftheannualcontractleRerbeforeitissenttofaculty.”[ChargetoFSCinthe

FacultyHandbook]

WhatdoestheFSCneedfromtheGF?

•  Giveusinput.•  BeonthelookoutforsurveysfromFSC.•  Bepa<ent.•  SupporttheFacultyWelfareCommi>ee.


Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

May 4, 2016 Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

Proxies were held by: for: Chris Bernhardt Matt Coleman Betsy Bowen Gita Rajan Ryan Colwell Bryan Crandall Ronald Davidson Katherine Schwab Ryan Drake Sara Brill Shah Etemad Bruce Berdanier Shah Etemad Ryan Munden Shannon Gerry Shelley Phelan Paula Gill Lopez Evelyn Bilias Lolis Sheila Grossman Diana Mager Sheila Grossman Eileen O'Shea Liz Hohl Johanna Garvey Jerelyn Johnson Javier Campos Dennis Keenan Nancy Dallavalle Shannon Kelley Angela Biselli Jen Klug Tod Osier Matthew Kubasik Aaron Van Dyke Joan Lee Rebecca Bloch Mark Ligas Chris Huntley Dawn Massey Kathi Mettler John Miecznikowski Eileen Reilly-Wiedow Kathy Nantz Ania Aksan Laura Nash Marice Rose Emily Orlando Shawn Rafalski Rajasree Rajamma John Neal Rajasree Rajamma Camelia Micu Susan Rakowitz Cheryl Tromley Michael Sciandra Mousumi Bose Godbole Michael Sciandra Arjun Chaudhuri Brian Walker Aaron Perkus

Prof. Alison Kris, Chair of the General Faculty, called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

1. Announcements

Prof. Susan Rakowitz thanked the FWC for the gala breakfast that preceded the meeting and announced a brief FWC election meeting after the General Faculty meeting. She then explained the procedures– each election would be open to nominations from the floor in addition to the nominees on the distributed ballot. Following each election, the outgoing chair would offer a brief summary of the committee's annual report and be open to taking a few questions.

2. Committee annual reports and elections

Annual reports and committee minutes are posted at the General Faculty website: http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/


Election results are as follows:

Academic Council: Jerelyn Johnson, John Miecznikowski, Amalia Rusu, Chris Staecker, Emily Smith, David Zera, Mousumi Bhattacharya, Ahmed Ebrahim

Committee on Committees: Peter Bayers, John Slotemaker

Rank and Tenure: Faith-Anne Dohm, Dennis Keenan, Diana Mager

Research Committee: Shannon Gerry

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee: Ryan Drake, Giovanni Ruffini, Amalia Rusu, Michael Sciandra, Catherine Sumpio

Admissions and Scholarships Committee: Gigi Belfadel, Audra Nuru

Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees: David Downie, Shawn Rafalski

Student Life Committee: Maggie Labinski

Library Committee: Eileen O'Shea, Rajasree Rajamma, Jiwei Xiao

Public Lectures and Events Committee: Ania Aksan

Athletics Committee: Jamie Macbeth, Hedieh Shadmani

Faculty Committee on Sustainability: Ania Aksan, Lydia Willsky-Ciollo

University Advancement Committee: Danke Li, Brian Walker

Educational Planning Committee: Sheila Grossman, John Miecznikowski, Elizabeth Petrino

Faculty Salary Committee: Paul Lakeland, Vin Rosivach (1-year term)

Faculty Development and Evaluation Committee: Ryan Colwell, Elizabeth Petrino, Linda Roney

Educational Technologies Committee: Carol Ann Davis, Michael Pagano

Budget Committee: Carl Scheraga

University Merit Appeals Committee: Shah Etemad, Nicole O'Brien

3. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 am. Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty


Fairfield University General Faculty Meeting

May 31, 2016 Draft Minutes of Meeting

These minutes have not yet been approved by the General Faculty.

Proxies were held by: for: Sergio Adrada Rafael Jiwei Xiao Sergio Adrada Rafael Mary Ann Carolan Catherine Andersen Anita Fernandez Uma Balaji Harsha Srinivas Sundarram Uma Balaji Doug Lyon Peter Bayers Michael White Audrey Beauvais Jenna LoGiudice Audrey Beauvais Sally Gerard Patricia Behre William Abbott Jim Biardi Ashley Byun Beth Boquet Carol Ann Davis Beth Boquet Kathy Nantz Jocelyn Boryczka Marcie Patton Jocelyn Boryczka Janie Leatherman Phyllis Braun Diane Brousseau Sara Brill Ryan Drake Cecelia Bucki Danke Li Cecelia Bucki Giovanni Ruffini Bryan Crandall Patricia Calderwood David Crawford Scott Lacy Ronald Davidson Katherine Schwab Mark Demers Matt Coleman Sara Diaz Christine Earls Cathy Giapponi Rajasree Rajamma Don Gibson Meredith Wallace Kazer Olivia Harriott Shelley Phelan Linda Henkel Shannon Harding Linda Henkel Michael Andreychik Imara Hernandez Javier Campos Walt Hlawitschka David Schmidt Dennis Keenan Terry-Ann Jones Dennis Keenan Suzanne Chamlin-Richer Jen Klug Tod Osier Alison Kris Diana Mager Alison Kris Kate Wheeler Joan Lee Rebecca Bloch Joan Lee Kathi Mettler Mark Ligas Arjun Chaudhuri Dawn Massey Milo Peck David McFadden Jennifer Adair John Miecznikowski Kraig Steffen John Miecznikowski Eileen Reilly-Wiedow Irene Mulvey Chris Bernhardt Irene Mulvey Jackie Vernarelli Ryan Munden Bruce Berdanier Tom Murray William Vasquez Tom Murray Scott Hiller Laura Nash Marice Rose


Laura Nash Jo Yarrington Nicole O'Brien Maryann LaBella Nicole O'Brien Paula Gill Lopez Sally O'Driscoll Gita Rajan Michael Pagano Colleen Arendt Lynne Porter Marti LoMonaco Lynne Porter Patrick Brooks Rona Preli Faith-Anne Dohm Rona Preli Ginny Kelly Shawn Rafalski Jerelyn Johnson Shawn Rafalski Emily Orlando Susan Rakowitz Shah Etemad Susan Rakowitz Aaron Van Dyke Tracey Robert Barbara Welles-Nystrom Linda Roney Suzanne Chaplik Ron Salafia Dorothea Braginsky Ron Salafia Vincent Rosivach Michael Sciandra Iman Naderi Michael Sciandra Camelia Micu Joyce Shea Sheila Grossman John Slotemaker Lydia Willsky-Ciollo John Slotemaker Martin Nguyen Jill Smith-Carpenter Matt Kubasik Stephanie Storms Emily Smith Toby Svoboda Steve Bayne Toby Svoboda Curt Naser Brian Torff David Lerner Brian Torff Philip Eliasoph Cheryl Tromley Paul Daulerio Gary Weddle Amanda Harper-Leatherman Gary Weddle Ed O'Connell David Zera Paul Maloney David Zera Anne Campbell

Chair Alison Kris called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

6. Announcements

Prof. Jocelyn Boryczka announced that the Faculty Welfare Committee had just had a good meeting and invited all faculty to take 20 minutes after the General Faculty (GF) meeting to show support for the Faculty Salary Committee (FSC) and for our 50 year old processes. In order to collectively express the significance of the current moment, we will take a walk to Bellarmine, where she will present a flyer to the President stating our support for our processes. She hoped all could make it.

Prof. Irene Mulvey announced that the George Lang Award was presented recently at the annual meeting of the Connecticut State Conference-AAUP in New Haven. The award will be re-presented at a GF meeting in the Fall, but she wanted to announce and acknowledge the winner, Prof. Paul Baginski.

7. Report from the Faculty Salary Committee and consideration of 2016-2017 MOU/BPO, if available

Prof. Bob Epstein took the podium for the FSC. He thanked faculty for attending, while wishing that we didn't have to be here. He explained that he was not the chair of the FSC, but he has served on it all year. The chair, Prof. Chris Bernhardt is traveling and wasn't available today, our last day on contract. He said that we owe Prof. Bernhardt a huge debt of gratitude for his work this year, and the faculty responded with warm applause. The immediate past chair of the committee, Prof. Mulvey, has filled in in Prof. Bernhardt's absence.

Prof. Epstein then began reviewing the materials that were sent to the faculty last night. The introductory sections on history and background are particularly important for newer faculty. The FSC is longstanding; it


has been in the Faculty Handbook for decades. The process is tried and true and has worked well for the university and for the faculty for decades. Our contract documents include the Memo of Understanding (MOU), which incorporates the Benefits Plan Overview (BPO), which details our benefits. The MOU references our Faculty Handbook and our individual contract letters, signed by the University President. The MOU, Handbook, and contract letters all cross-reference each other.

The process is that the FSC meets with the administrative team to discuss and ultimately recommend a new MOU to the General Faculty. That process has mostly worked well; usually an MOU is recommended before the end of the academic year. He read from the MOU, "After collegial discussions, the Faculty Salary Committee and the Administration have agreed to recommend to the General Faculty for ratification and to the Budget Committee for inclusion in the budget that they submit to the President and the Board of Trustees the following compensation package." He also quoted from the current contract letters, "The terms referred to in the Memo of Understanding, on Faculty Salary and Benefits, 2015-16 will apply from September 1, 2015, and continue until superseded by a subsequent Memo of Understanding…" noting that the language here is clear even to a lay person– no changes to benefits can be unilaterally imposed.

Moving to this year's process, he reminded faculty of the updates they've received all year. The FSC met every Tuesday since September with the administrative team. They worked hard to arrive at an agreement, but haven't been able to. Focusing on the end of the year, he said that the administration made their second offer, which they described as their "last, best and final" offer on April 19. On April 26, the FSC asked many questions about the administration's proposal and countered with a multi-year proposal. The next day, the administration rejected the FSC's counteroffer without explanation or further discussion. On May 1, the administration offered another "last, best and final offer". The FSC and administration met on May 3 and May 10, but the administration declined to meet on May 17.

On May 18, an ad hoc committee of the Board of Trustees met with a group of faculty, including representatives from the FSC, and separately with the administrative team. The faculty emphasized our concerns about process– we were engaged and making concessions all year and we believe that a resolution is possible if the administration fully and flexibly engages with the process. The faculty asked Board members whether the Board was invested in any specific outcome because in the discussions, members of the administration implied that the Board was invested in particular outcomes. The Board members said, no, their concern was with uncertainty. Prof. Epstein noted that nothing was less uncertain than where we are now because the current MOU stays in place, so there is no financial uncertainty.

On May 23, the FSC received correspondence from Mr. Frank Carroll, Chair of the Board and of the ad hoc Board committee. This message served noticed that if there was no resolution by June 2, the Board believed it was their fiduciary responsibility to take action. SVP Tom Pellegrino said the administration was ready to move forward to discuss whether their offer of May 1 would be recommended to the General Faculty. Absent agreement, the administration was ready to submit to the Board of Trustees.

The FSC asked GFS Susan Rakowitz to schedule an emergency General Faculty meeting which is why we're here today. They met with the administrative team on May 25, the first possible time after receipt of Mr. Carroll's letter. At that time, the FSC offered another proposal. It was a three-year proposal that addressed some concerns raised by the administration about a previously rejected five-year proposal. The main sticking point was healthcare, especially the administration's proposal to have employees continue cost-sharing 20% of premiums while their spouses and dependents would have to cost-share 30%. The FSC objects to the proposed healthcare changes in general because the administration has not demonstrated any need for any changes to healthcare now. They specifically object to the split in cost-shares because it is regressive in the social welfare sense of hitting hardest those with greatest need. The FSC instead offered an across the board increase in cost-share in year two of a three-year plan to 25% in the context of an offset into base salary. The offset would be calculated to make the change initially revenue neutral. There would be no other changes to healthcare over the three years. Another element of the FSC's proposal was specifically tailored to address an administration concern about tying salary increases to cost of living, by instead tying them to tuition increases. Each year's increase would be the greater of 2% or 1% below that year's tuition increase.

After the FSC initially presented their proposal, the administrative team caucused for a few minutes and then said they would need time for further discussion and would get back to the FSC. That was Wednesday morning. The FSC made themselves available all afternoon that day and all day Thursday and Friday, though


the administrative team said they were not available Friday. About 1 p.m. on Wednesday they received a brief email from SVP Pellegrino who said the administration was still consulting. They then heard nothing further until 4:30 on Thursday, in other words, by the administration's timetable, too late to meet again until after the three-day weekend, at most, hours before the GF meeting. In that message, the administration amended their last offer to an across the board cost-share of 25% beginning in year one, and without an offset into base salary. In other words, they cherry-picked one element of the FSC's carefully designed counteroffer. Without the offset, this amended offer would actually cost faculty more than the administration's previous offer. In a labor law sense, that makes this most recent administrative offer a regressive offer. Furthermore, the administration would not meet to discuss their proposal. They said they wouldn't meet until 11 this morning, but only if the FSC agreed beforehand and in writing to their proposal. In that case, they would meet just to prepare an MOU that the FSC would apparently bring to the GF meeting for a vote a few hours later. Ultimately the administration retracted their offer to meet today.

Prof. Epstein concluded this section of the presentation by noting that the administration unilaterally ended discussions. They pressured the FSC to recommend their offer to the GF for approval and went on record that if their proposal was not recommended, they would present it to the Board. The FSC, on the other hand, has been quite flexible. Their most recent offer represents significant material concessions relative to their first offer in November which was a three-year proposal with a salary increase of 2% plus CPI each year, no changes to healthcare, increase in the university's retirement contribution from 9% to 10%, and (re)establishment of a reserve fund. The FSC's most recent proposal includes concessions on all elements except the reserve fund (on which some progress has been made), along with acceptance of the administration's proposal to end the retirement buyout. He noted that the administration began discussions by insisting that this was the right time for a multi-year deal and it could be done quickly, yet the administration didn't come forward with a proposal all Fall. They made their first proposal in February and essentially made no movement from it, especially with regard to healthcare. They did back off on proposing the elimination of the PPO, but that was apparently settled last year. They agreed in principle to a reserve fund, but there are details to work out, and they continue to insist on co-insurance and increased deductibles.

At this point, Prof. Walter Hlawitschka went through some slides (attached) put together by the faculty members on the Health Care Committee (HCC). He said that the main point of contention was healthcare. The administration wants to increase cost shares and deductibles, add co-insurance, and make changes to out of pocket maximums. He then went through an overview of concessions faculty have made from agreeing to cost share in 2010 through adding/increasing deductibles in 2016. At the same time, the administration has regularly overbudgeted for health care– by 9.1% in 2014, 22.5% in 2015, and for the first three months of 2016, the budgeted costs exceed actual costs by 27.6%. He went on to a slide produced by Mercer and provided by our VP of Human Resources. It shows that the per person cost to the university was $13,609 in 2009 and $13,165 in 2015 (80% of $15,457). In other words, while health care costs in general have gone up much faster than inflation, the cost of per person health care to the university has gone down. This is mainly a result of the faculty paying a greater percentage of health care costs. The cost savings to the university are demonstrated clearly on the last slide. Publicly available IPEDS data show that from 2002 to 2014 (the years available), instructional compensation as a percent of total expenses has gone from 27.9% down to 20.95%.

Prof. Epstein retook the podium and noted the tremendous missed opportunity with the HCC this year. The administration didn't send any of their proposals to the HCC. The faculty finally insisted that the HCC consider the administration's proposed changes to healthcare, but the HCC didn't have the data needed to assess the implications of the changes.

Turning to the role of the Board of Trustees, Prof. Epstein said that certain members of the administration and the Board seem to be mistaken about their role in the process. Our attorneys say we're correct about the MOU remaining in effect until superseded. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility, but the highest order fiduciary responsibility should be to insure that the university's contractual commitments are respected. He concluded by thanking the members of the Faculty Welfare Committee for their dues, which support our legal consultations.

At this point, the floor was opened to questions.

Prof. Peter Bayers asked whether he understood correctly that the administration has provided no clear rationale for their proposed healthcare changes. Prof. Epstein confirmed. He said that the FSC has insisted all


year long that we're willing to engage in finding smart ways to address healthcare costs as we've done previously, as seen in Prof. Hlawitschka's presentation.

Prof. Mike McDonald said that he was only in his second year but he didn't understand the antagonistic relationship and wondered whether there is any indication that the administration won't do this again in the future. Prof. Epstein said that for decades, until about four years ago, we've always had an MOU by April. The atmosphere has changed despite the administration's optimism at the beginning of the year. They insisted on unjustified and unexplained healthcare changes, and then used the language of "last, best and final" and of "impasse," and they invoked the Board. It's all extremely antagonistic, but he doesn't know why.

Prof. Beth Boquet asked about the goal of a multi-year contract. She wondered whether they ever discussed a need to disaggregate the multi-year piece from some of these discussions. In unions, three-year contracts often take a long time to negotiate. It's not surprising that we're still trying to figure out the terms of a very new structure. Prof. Epstein agreed that it ought to be obvious that it would be more difficult to arrive at a multi-year contract; we assumed that's why we were meeting so frequently so early in the year. By Spring he was becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress and the administration's apparent misunderstanding of the framework. He said that he kept saying there have to be benefits apparent to both sides for a multi-year contract. As the administration kept insisting on changes to healthcare this year, without rationales, the FSC finally said this is not the context for a multi-year contract and instead tried to reach agreement on a one-year contract. But the administration's one-year proposal had all of the unacceptable healthcare changes in one year.

Prof. Ron Salafia, in answer to the earlier question about antagonism, brought up the 1992-93 arbitration. The FSC lost because it couldn't prove intentional misbehavior on the administration's part, but much of the decision talked about how understandable it was that faculty would perceive the administration's behavior negatively. According to the decision, the administration conveyed an attitude that suggested it was not interested in working together. He said that he saw that attitude continued 20+ years later.

Prof. Lucrecia Garci-Iommi asked what the Board could do or whether they were making an empty threat. Prof. Epstein said that our legal counsel says that there are sound legal bases for our interpretation that the Board does not have a mandate to impose terms.

With no further questions, the body turned to the motions that were suggested in the meeting materials.

Motion [Epstein/Bucki]: The General Faculty will not vote on a proposal that the FSC does not fully understand.

Motion passed, 200-0.

At this point, Prof. Mark Demers from the FSC took over for Prof. Epstein who had another commitment.

Motion [Demers/McFadden]: The General Faculty would accept the terms of compensation in the FSC’s three-year proposal that was presented to the administration on May 25.

Prof. David McFadden said that it was important to show what the faculty will support.

There was some discussion about the implications of this vote. Prof. Joe Dennin asked whether a yes vote automatically commits the faculty to approving an MOU if one comes forward with these terms. Prof. Demers said that it supports continued discussions. Prof. Nancy Dallavalle asked whether there would also be an opportunity to vote on the administration's terms, as she would prefer accepting those terms to having the issue go to the Board. She questioned whether the first motion precluded a vote on the administration's terms. Prof. Demers said that these are the terms recommended by the FSC. Prof. Mulvey said that according to our contractual documents, the FSC and administration have to agree to recommend an MOU– that's the step we're at now. The Board has no role unless that FSC and administration agree and then either the GF or the Budget Committee reject the proposed MOU. Prof. Dallavalle acknowledged the point about where we are but noted that we're being polled about the FSC's proposal and not the administration's. Prof. Boquet said that the motion helps the FSC to know where the GF stands. She asked to clarify that even with a yes vote and agreement with the administration on these terms, an MOU would still need to come back to the GF.


Prof. Demers confirmed that the GF would need to vote on an MOU. Prof. Paul Lakeland added that it was important to recognize that this is a hypothetical; it doesn't bind the FSC to these terms of compensation.

Prof. Primavera asked about the problem of some people not being eligible for an HSA and the fact that this proposal doesn't specify the continuation of the PPO. Prof. Demers said that the administration has again backed off from dropping the PPO, and noted that the proposal includes no further changes to healthcare.

Prof. Hlawitschka reviewed and explained the terms a bit. They include giving up the retirement buyout and going to a 75/25 cost share in year 2 with an offset into the base. The logic of the salary offer (the greater of 2% per year or 1% less than the increase in tuition) is that the Federal Reserve is currently forecasting inflation at .3 below 2%, but if there's runaway inflation, this proposal gives us some protection from inflation without putting pressure on tuition.

Prof. Angela Biselli asked about the cost-share. What's our protection regarding what it's a percentage of? Prof. Demers said that's why we're working hard on the reserve fund. If one year is overbudgeted, then the surplus is subtracted from the premiums the next year.

Prof. David Zera asked why we aren't voting to support the FSC's November proposal. He would prefer to support that rather than the May 25 proposal. Prof. Demers said that it has been a long year since November.

Motion [Mulvey/Salafia] to call the question. Question was called.

Motion [Demers/McFadden]: The General Faculty would accept the terms of compensation in the FSC’s three-year proposal that was presented to the administration on May 25.


Motion [Demers/Bucki]: Whereas the plain language of faculty contractual documents states that the 2015-16 MOU continues until superseded by a subsequent MOU, and

Whereas the first step in the process for establishing a subsequent MOU requires the Faculty Salary Committee and Administration to reach agreement on a compensation package to recommend to the General Faculty and Budget Committee, and

Whereas there is no financial uncertainty for 2016-17 because the current MOU remains in place until superseded by a subsequent MOU, and

Whereas, there is no need to rush changes to health insurance since health insurance remains in place until at least December 31, 2016,

Therefore, it is the General Faculty’s position that any unilateral imposition of terms of compensation is neither appropriate nor allowed.


Motion [Demers/Boquet]: The General Faculty calls upon the administration to provide all data and communications between the University and its health care consultants on an ongoing basis to the Health Care Committee.

Prof. Demers explained the reason for this motion. The HCC has been trying to make it clear to the administration that this is the information they need in order to be full partners in finding sensible changes to health insurance. Yet in response to such a request, SVP Pellegrino recently wrote that, "The request for communications between the administration and Mercer is, for various reasons, outside the scope of the collegial discussions."

Prof. Boquet said that she was on the FSC when they began to think about changes to healthcare. Concessions should be made in the context of shared information and a recognition that faculty also feel a deep commitment and fiduciary responsibility to the institution. That's why this is such an important motion.

Motion passed, 184-3


Motion [Demers/Castor]: The General Faculty endorses the FWC/AAUP’s actions with regard to setting up a Legal Matters Subcommittee, and urges them to investigate all options for faculty.

Prof. Salafia asked about the implications of this motion– will we be asked for financial support? Prof. Demers said that the motion simply supports exploration of options.

Prof. Mousumi Bhattacharya asked about the overbudgeting presented earlier and whether she was allowing them to take excess money from her paycheck. Prof. Demers replied that yes, Fairfield self-insures, otherwise they would have to spend at least 85% of premiums collected on healthcare. Last year they spent less than 80%. That's why the reserve fund is so important.


Motion [Demers/Tromley]: The General Faculty calls upon the Administration to reaffirm and commit to genuine, good faith collegial discussions.

Prof. Cheryl Tromley said that she has been here for 29 years and in that time, we've been forbidden to use the language of bargaining, rather than collegial discussions. The phrase, "last, best and final" has no place in collegial discussions.


Motion [Demers/Behre]: The General Faculty directs the Secretary of the General Faculty to adapt the information provided for the May 31, 2016 General Faculty meeting as appropriate and send it to the Chair of the Board of Trustees for distribution to all members of the Board of Trustees.

Prof. Gerry Cavallo asked whether the materials could/would include these motions. Prof. Rakowitz said that she took the word "adapt" as allowing for some flexibility and would include the motions and votes.

Prof. Tromley said that it's important that the Board members have all of this information; they don't always get all the information.


Prof. Boryczka call for and received a strong round of applause for the FSC. She then reminded faculty of the walk to Bellarmine following the meeting.

8. Discussion with and direction to the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees regarding the June 2 Board Meeting

Prof. Rakowitz briefly explained that the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees is charged in the Handbook to take direction from the Academic Council or General Faculty. Accordingly they went to the Academic Council's May meeting and were given some direction, but were also advised to stay tuned because of the possibility of things happening with the compensation discussions. This agenda item was an opportunity for the GF to provide updated direction to the Committee.

Motion [Behre/McFadden]: The GF authorizes the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees to discuss with the Board the problems of process in this year's collegial discussions that were raised at the May 31 GF meeting.


There were no further motions or suggestions for the Committee.

9. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn [Dennin/Bucki] was uncontested at 3:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Prof. Susan Rakowitz Secretary of the General Faculty


Four Important Points from the faculty members on the Health Care Committee

1

1.  The Faculty have accepted many changes to health care over the past few

years. 2.  Those changes are making a difference. Costs to the university are

down. 3.  The administration continues to over budget healthcare resulting in

artificially high premiums. 4.  Overall, the cost of instructional compensation is a shrinking part of the

university budgets.

The Many Concessions Made by the Faculty:

2

1.  Prior to 2010, Fairfield University provided health insurance at no cost

to the employee. 2.  Beginning 2010, faculty started cost-sharing 10% of health insurance

premiums. 3.  Beginning 2014, the faculty cost-share went to 20% 4.  For 2015 faculty accept an asymmetric increase in premiums: faculty

premiums increase by 14.7% and university premium increased by 2.5%. 5.  Beginning 2015 faculty accepted 7 plan design changes (Mandatory

generics, Mandatory specialty pharma, ER copy increase, Hospital admit increase, surcharge for smokers, HSA wellness initiative, Insurance opt out.)

6.  Beginning 2016 faculty accepted a plan deductible for the PPO and increased the plan deductible for the HSA. Each of these changes increased costs to faculty by $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families.

Financial Status of Fairfield’s Healthcare Plans

3

2014 Experience Amount budgeted: $14,997,401 Actual costs: $13,743,822 Amount over budgeted: $1,253,579


4

2015 Experience Amount budgeted: $15,093,960 Actual costs: $12,326,624 Amount over budgeted: $2,767,336


5

2016 Experience, YTD Amount Budgeted first 3 months 2016: $3,643,626 Actual costs first 3 months 2016: $2,855,089 Amount over budgeted first 3 months 2016 : $788,537 *Average number of plan participants so far in 2016 = 747.67 Average over budgeted per participant so far in 2016 $1,054.66 Individual employee overcharge so far (20% of total) = $210.93

PeerGroup(*):AlfredUniversity,DartmouthCollege,GordonUniversity,IthacaCollege,LeMoyneCollege,LehighUniversity,PennStateUniversity,PrincetonUniversity,RiderUniversity,RochesterInstituteofTechnology,SaintJoseph'sUniversity,SmithCollege,TeachersCollege(Columbia)UniversityofHartford,UniversityofNewEngland,UniversityofPittsburgh,UniversityofRochester,VillanovaUniversity,WellesleyCollege(*)-only2oftheoriginal10,2014peergroupparticipantsareinthe2015survey,therefore,theexpaneduniversitygroupof19isapplied.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015FFLDPEPY $13,609 $14,127 $15,577 $16,713 $17,152 $18,090 $16,457

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000 MedicalCostTrend&PeerComparisonFairfield$18,090 Fairfield$16,457

Peergroup - $14,600

Northeast500 - $12,900Peergroup - $12,400


Health Care Costs at Fairfield: Trends

7

2009  Per person cost of healthcare to University: $13,609.00 2015 Per person cost of healthcare to University:

(University pays 80% of total) ($16,457 x .80 =) $13,165.60

Change per person cost to University in dollars: -$443.40

*Lower costs to the University were achieved by shifting costs to faculty through premium cost shares, increased deductibles, and multiple plan modifications. The changes were voted on by the faculty. Salary offsets were agreed to by administration for increases in premium cost shares.

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percen

t

2002-2014

IPEDSDataonInstruc5onalCompensa5onasaPercentofTotal

Expenses

20.95%27.9%

Documents

General Faculty Meeting Friday September 16, 2016 Agenda · 2016. 9. 7. · General Faculty Meeting Page 1 September 16, 2016 General Faculty Meeting Friday September 16, 2016 Gonzaga