The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of Meeting 483
18 November 2009
Synopsis:
The
Senate:
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 483
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, November 18, 2009. The Senate Secretary
Marilyn Cooper called roll. Absent were Senator Johnson and representatives of
Army/Air Force ROTC, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering,
and Advancement. Renee Blackburn (GSC) and Scott Thompson (USG) were also in
attendance.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost), Ellen Horsch (VP for
Administration), and Bill Sproule (Civil and Environmental Engineering).
3. Approval of agenda.
L. Davis moved approval of the agenda; Hamlin seconded the motion; and it passed on a voice vote with no dissent.
4. Approval of minutes from meeting 482.
Storer moved approval of the minutes; Hamlin seconded the motion; and it passed on a voice vote with no
dissent.
5. Presentation: The Administrative Response to the Senate
Poll, by Max Seel
As the administrative liaison to the
Senate, Provost Seel stated that he was presenting the administration’s
response to the recent poll of the
Senate constituency on the changes in total compensation to faculty and staff. He stated that the response represents the
consensus of President Mroz, Vice President Reed, Vice President Horsch, and
himself.
To the
Senate and the Senate Constituency:
We
have read the results and the comments related to the survey regarding the
compensation package changes. We firmly believe that we had to make the changes
to ensure the long-term health of the university.
Two
things need to be clearly separated: 1. Shifting compensation from benefits to
salary to make our structure similar to our peers so we stay competitive ; and
2. Containing the rising health care costs. These have been mixed up in some of
the discussion and presentations, but they are two very different things.
The
dominant themes that arise from the comments on the poll are paternalism,
process, and communication. The following clarification seems to be
appropriate: the recommendations of the Compensation Task Force were reported
to the Senate more than a year ago, on October 8, 2008 (from the Senate
minutes: “... that the BLG develop scenarios for reducing the Michigan Tech
fringe rate to 34-36 percent while being cost-neutral to the university and
without impacting total compensation”) and the changes should not have come as
such a complete surprise as claimed in many comments.
We
also believe that it is important that BLG members have some space of
confidentiality to deliberate and brainstorm.
Having
said that, we agree that we have to strive to continuously improve our
communication process.
The
current times are very challenging economically. We are all faced with it,
faculty, students, staff, and administration.
Recommendations were made by task forces and committees; we made the
final decision of what we truly believe is in the best interest of Michigan
Tech in the long run.
Dewey
said that when you talk about shifting fringe benefits to salary it’s not cost
neutral to the employees, and I’m not convinced it’s cost neutral to the
University.
Seel
said that many people have made different spread sheets, but whichever you use,
it is cost neutral in the long term. We all agree that fringe benefits are
higher at Michigan Tech than at other Michigan universities and salaries are
lower. If Michigan Tech is to remain competitive with its peers, we have to
make some shifts. Dewey said that he was not arguing the way it was done. He
said his point was that the shift was not cost neutral to the employees. He
added that the shift in health benefits last year, which was done as a
percentage of salary, was more costly to the lower paid employees. Seel said
there will be differences of opinion, but the administration at the end thought
that this was the right way to go for the University. Dewey asked whether in
the shift in retirement benefits this year the administration is assuming in
this cost neutral calculation that everyone will participate. Seel said that it
will be cost neutral to the University no matter what employees choose to do.
Horsch said they did assume that employees would participate in the matching
contributions at the same rate as they have been doing. Dewey asked whether if
only 95 percent participate the administration will shift another 5 percent to
the employees. Seel said that given the economic situation in Michigan, that
would be doubtful. Dewey reiterated that the shift in retirement contributions
is not cost neutral to the individual. Seel said he disagreed with that.
L.
Davis said that since health care costs are charged to employees independent of
their salaries, he was having a hard time understanding how the shift in health
care support, which was based on a percentage of salary, can’t impact the lower
paid employees more than higher paid employees. Seel said he didn’t say that,
just that the shift was cost neutral overall to the University. It was for the
long term health of the University that the changes had to happen.
L.
Davis said that we have heard over the past year that we have resolved our
budget issues and we are in good shape, but reading the last paragraph in the
administrative response, it doesn’t sound like we are doing that well. Seel
said that in comparison to other state universities, Michigan Tech is doing
much better. Davis commented that it’s like Ford comparing themselves to
General Motors and Chrysler. Horsch said that
Michigan Tech is on solid financial ground, but we must be diligent.
Health care costs are rising, and that is one of the things the BLG is
responding to in its recommendations to the administration. Anything could
happen. But right now, given everything we have been planning, we are on solid
financial ground.
L.
Davis asked whether it is fair to say that the administration is not
contemplating further changes to health care and retirement benefits that will
cost employees additional money over the next couple of years. Seel said that
he is not a prophet; he doesn’t know what will happen over the next couple of
years, and he doesn’t know what will happen to the economy. Davis asked whether
the administration is currently contemplating such changes. Horsch said that
the administration is constantly reviewing the plan, and they want that fringe
rate to go down. They will be looking at it the possibility of changes, but
whether they will make changes she doesn’t know. She said that right now there is nothing
planned that she is aware of. Seel said
that the cost of health care is beyond our control, but we have to make sure
the University is in stable financial condition. We have to do what we can. We
are less dependent on the state, whose contribution is now down to 20 percent.
Tuition is the largest source of income, followed by research. Research,
tuition, and fundraising are under our control. State allocations are not in
our control. It is not a matter of the administration against the faculty and
the staff. We are trying to make sure this place is in good shape over the long
term.
Hamlin
said that he feels the move to the HSA is great, but his frustration is that
the boundary condition is set wrong. To match a set fringe rate seems like the
wrong target when we are trying to attract and retain world-class faculty,
staff students. He said he doesn’t
believe that anyone considering Michigan Tech does a fringe rate percentage
comparison between universities. Seel said that some say the fringe rate does
make a difference, and others say it doesn’t make a difference. The first thing people compare are salaries,
and we tried to get more money into salaries. Hamlin said that we have
first-class faculty who are here, and that he would bet that given the choice,
most would stick with the retirement contributions from last year and forego
any raise. He said that we lost our ability to put more money into retirement,
because more of the contribution is counted against the maximum we can
contribute, and more income is taxable. L. Davis said that is true for
employees who were contributing the maximum. Moran commented that he thought
there were very few people in that situation. Davis said that to say it affects
no one is equally naïve. Nobody knows how many people will be affected except
the Human Resources people, and they can’t tell us. Hamlin said it still would
be a good idea to have the option. Seel said that the University cannot offer
too many options.
L.
Davis stated that we’re all in agreement that our salaries are below market
rate on average. If we increase salaries by the amount we are low, what would
our fringe rate be? Seel said he didn’t understand this argument that if we
just paid higher salaries we would be okay when it came up before. He said that
when retirement contributions go up the fringe rate goes up. Davis explained
that health insurance costs remains constant because it is not a percentage of
salary. So if salaries go up, the fringe rate goes down. Luck agreed that if
the salary would increase the fringe rate would go down, but that the
University simply doesn’t have the money to increase the salaries. Hamlin said
he could understand that reality, but that he objected to the implication that
the changes were to benefit the employees. He asked that we just be told the
truth. L. Davis agreed.
Vogler
said that anytime you increase compensation by a percentage, which we did when
we made the shift in health care and when we made the shift in retirement, you
are disproportionally shifting the wealth to those with higher salaries. This
is a consistent pattern at Michigan Tech. At the same time, when you increase a
flat charge across the board, you are disproportionately impacting those with
lower salaries, as we did with the increase in the monthly premium in the PPO.
Now there is a suggestion that employees might have to pay for parking. It
doesn’t seem to speak for the health of the University when we continually
negatively impact the lower paid employees to solve our economic problems, and
I hope the BLG will consider this in the future and that the Senate will
consider an affirmation that this is not necessarily the best way to go. Seel
said that he understands the argument and that it is a very important point. It
comes up every year in the context of merit raises. We do need to look out for
the lower income employees. Hamlin said that the percentage changes in health
insurance last year meant that we don’t all make the same sacrifice. He said he
couldn’t believe this shift of wealth was happening again.
Snyder
said that some retired employees have been saying that how Aetna is dealing with
their accounts has changed over the last year. Aetna has been denying payment
of the residual health care costs left after Medicare has paid because Aetna
claims that the amount that has been paid by Medicare exceeds the amount they
negotiated and they will not pay the difference. Those rates that Medicare pays
are Medicare negotiated rates, not Aetna negotiated rates. Seel and Horsch said
they would seek the answer from the Benefits office.
Smith
asked what the cost per contract is. Horsch said they will try to get it. Smith
said it’s important to have that figure so we can see the increase in cost from
year to year. Horsch said that Renee is planning to do that.
6. President’s Report and Report of Senate Committees
President Luck listed the Senate accomplishments for this academic year to date.
The following proposals were passed:
16-09: Double Majors at Michigan Tech, 5-10: Survey of Senate
Constituency on Compensation Changes, and 6-10: Graduate Certificate in
Sustainable Water Resources System; the latter proposal was signed by President
Mroz on November 6. The Senate Institutional Planning Committee chair (Brenda
Rudiger) was invited to be on the Parking Task Force. The provost search is
following the Senate procedures and is at step 32 of 54 in the process. The
description of the charge of the Committee on Academic Tenure, Promotion, and
Review on the website has been rewritten to be more accurate. Two suggestions
originating in the Senate seem to have been taken by Human Resources: now
available on the HR website are illustrations of retirement plans illustration and a
retirement plan plug & play calculator.
He
announced that it is no longer necessary to submit any certificates (including
graduate) for review to the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan.
Minors and certificates do not need their approval.
He
commented on the increase in health care premium trends. He said that we need
to be actively involved in determining the future of the University. Health
care premiums will go up. The benefits of the HSA have not yet been realized.
If more employees opt for the HSA, what will happen to the PPO plan? Dental and
vision plans were left the same for this year; will they be changed next year?
Wellness plans and deductions based on personal attributes like smoking,
exercise plan, losing weight, are becoming popular and might be considered. And
we may be facing parking fees. He said that The fringe benefits and finance
committees of the Senate should examine these options and make some suggestions
that would be constructive for the University keeping in mind the financial
straits the University is in. Changes are coming. We should not just react, but
suggest some ways out.
He
announced that Senator at Large Mark Johnson has resigned. There are now two
at-large senator vacancies, and he asked the Senators for recommendations for
people he could appoint to fill out the rest of this year’s term. With the
departure of Johnson, a new chair of the Fringe Benefits committee is needed.
The members of the committee should choose a new chair. He acknowledge the work
of Marilyn Cooper as Secretary.
Update from the Parking Task Force, by Bill Sproule
Sproule said that he was filling in for
Brenda Rudiger, who was out of town. He said that the task force is in the
early stages of its work, understanding the problems and the issues. The task
force was set up in September by President Mroz. The charge to the task force
was to review and evaluate the current University parking registrations and
enforcement system and to make appropriate recommendations for changes to best
suit the needs of the institution. The completion date for recommendations was
set as January 1, 2010. Task Force members are:
Chair Ellen Horsch,
Administration
Daniel Bennett, Public Safety and Police Services
Andre Bonen, Housing and Residential Life
John Bramble, Dining Services, McNair Hall
Nik Chaphalkar, Student Body, Engineering
Katie Elicerio, Student Body, Biomedical Engineering
Randal Harrison, Graduate Student Council
Jarrod Karau, Information Technology
Andy Neimi, Facilities
John Rovano, Facilities
Brenda Rudiger, Alumni Association - Senate representative
Bill Sproule, Civil and Environmental Engineering
The tasks set for the task force by
Mroz are to determine the number of parking lots and available spaces; to
review procedures for assigning parking spaces; to evaluate existing parking
gates; to evaluate existing vehicle registration procedures and explore the
possibility of implementing registration/parking fees; to evaluate existing
issuance of visitor parking passes and handicapped parking placards; to
evaluate procedures for issuance of parking citations; to create an effective
appeals process for contesting parking citations; and to establish collection
procedures for persons delinquent in paying parking citations.
The
task force has met four times and are just understanding the issues and the
problems. We have about 4,200 spaces near the University: 860 spaces for
faculty and staff on the main campus; 1,260 spaces for faculty, staff, and
commuters at the SDC; 1,000 spaces for residential life; 800 spaces east of the
Rosza for commuters, including graduate students; 120 spaces for visitors; 160
spaces with parking meters; and an undetermined number of spaces in Daniell
Heights.
The
number of registered vehicles on campus is about 5,800. There are about 900
faculty and staff on the main campus. There are four departments involved in
regulating parking: the Registrar (for commuters), Housing (for residence hall
students), Daniell Heights, and Public Safety.
It
costs Michigan Tech about $780,000 in operations and maintenance costs to
provide parking, or about $180 per space. About $660,000 goes to enforcement,
snow plowing and snow removal, lighting, repairs, painting, and parking meters
and gates; about $120,000 to parking registration and information, and
personnel with parking administration responsibilities.
Typical costs for parking facilities
(operations and maintenance) annually (across the country) are $150 to $200 per
space for surface lots. The cost of constructing parking spaces (excluding the
cost of the land) is $1,500 to $3,500 per space for surface parking, $10,000 to
$20,000 per space for an above ground structure, and $25,000 to $40,000 per
space for an underground structure.
Michigan
Tech’s annual revenues from parking are about $340,000: $90,000 from commuter
parking fees, $20,000 from parking meters, $100,000 from pay lots, and $120,000
from collected parking fines.
The
task force has determined that parking issues include convenient parking; vehicle registration
process; costs and revenues of parking, including gates and other equipment;
and parking enforcement, including fines and citation issuance, appeals procedures,
and tracking of fines, citations, and so forth.
Information
gathering is ongoing. The task force has talked with other universities, has
visited with Northern Michigan, and is planning to visit Michigan State. They
have discovered some innovative approaches. They are still looking for ideas to
improve parking. They have not discussed the possibility of parking fees yet.
Hamlin asked whether it might be the
case that we have a driving problem rather than a parking problem. He said
we’ve done everything in our power to make it easy for everyone to drive rather
than offering incentives to walk. Sproule said not yet. Horsch said we now
will.
L.
Davis asked how the expense per year was calculated. Sproule said that the
information came from Andy Niemi in maintenance and information on the rest
from other sources. Davis asked if these
are estimates or if the accounting system collects this data. Sproule said they
are estimates. Davis commented that the operations, maintenance, and
construction costs sound reasonable but are averages for all across the
country, from Aberdeen to New York City. Sproule agreed, and said that talking
with colleagues in the profession, he would argue that $180 per space in this
area is reasonable.
Scarlett
asked if the cost for underground structures was a cost for an underground
parking garage and not for putting a garage under a building. Sproule said the
cost is the same, as you still have to build all the parking facilities.
Wood
asked whether there was a problem that triggered this study. Horsch said that
the administration has been getting more emails from people with parking
problems, and the other problem is having an appeal process fro those with
citations or other issues. Seel added that some new faculty this year were
assigned parking places up on the hill.
Wood
commented that there doesn’t seem to be anything presented so far that would
trigger an assessment of parking fees. Sproule offered figures on what other
universities charge for parking: at
Northern Michigan University it is $130 per year plus $40 for the summer; at
Lake Superior State University it is $75 per year; at the University of
Minnesota – Duluth it is $140 per year or for premium parking in designated
spaces $350–$450 per year; at Michigan State University, where they are trying
to build parking garages, it is $447 per year. At some other universities
parking is still free. NMU has remote lots and offers a free shuttle bus, which
is something we may have to look into.
L.
Davis suggested looking to see if there are clusters of faculty around town; if
so, you could run a shuttle bus for neighborhoods. Sproule agreed that that was
a possibility and also suggested incentives for walking, carpooling, biking,
snowmobiling.
Koszykowski
asked if graduate students are currently charged for parking. Sproule said yes,
they are charged $25 per semester. Koszykowski said that at NMU the fee is $130
per year for students as well as for faculty and staff.
Scarlett
asked whether there will there be a public comment period to invite input from
the campus community. He suggested it would be a good idea. Sproule said he
didn’t know whether a public comment session was planned, but said that the
call for comments didn’t generate many responses. Scarlett asked if the call
mentioned the possibility of parking fees. Sproule said it did list the tasks
of the task force, and Horsch said that the possibility of fees was listed as
one of the tasks.
Scott
Thompson asked whether Sproule would be willing to present this information to
the USG, and Sproule said yes.
Smith asked
what the ticket revenue has been. Sproule said $120,000. Horsch said that it
could be more, as the system hasn’t been able to keep track of the revenue from
visitors.
Report from the Elections Committee, by Soner Onder
The response rate on the ballot for a
member of the CATPR was 22.6 percent (84 ballots received of 367 sent).
Zhanping You received 78 votes, and there were write-in votes for Paul Nelson,
Michael Neuman, and Larry Lankton.
Onder said he is trying to find someone
to fill in as Secretary for spring semester. He mentioned that the position
comes with a 16 percent stipend that can be used in a number of ways in the
home department of the Secretary, and he asked Senators to help him find a
volunteer.
Report from the Administrative Policy Committee, by Martyn
Smith
Smith thanked Senators
for filling out the ballot on the relevance of possible issues to address in
the evaluation of the President.
RESULTS
He said that the committee will try to
make a very short survey that will cover relevant issues.
7. Old business. There
was no old business.
8. New business. There
was no new business.
9. Adjournment
Hamlin moved that the meeting be adjourned; Christianson seconded the motion; and President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:38 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marilyn Cooper
Secretary of the University Senate