THE SENATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Minutes of Meeting 266
11 December 1996
Synopsis: The Senate
(1) decided not to participate in the Provost's survey on
the budget.
(2) agreed to send their own survey on fringe benefit
issues.
(3) agreed to notify constituents that a Senate survey
would be distributed after the first of the year.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Bornhorst called the special Senate
Meeting 266 to order at 7:37 p.m. on Wednesday, 11
December 1996, in Room B45 of the Electrical Energy
Resources Center.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large
senator David Reed, and representatives from Chemical
Engineering, School of Technology, Army/Air Force
ROTC, Physical Education, KRC, and Finance and
Advancement. Liaison in attendance was Ted Soldan
(Staff Council).
The President stated that he had called the meeting
at his own discretion because he felt it would be more
palatable to meet all in one night instead of having a
separate meeting.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Fred Dobney (Provost), Marcia
Goodrich (Tech Topics), Les Leifer (Chemistry), Beth
Flynn (Humanities), Freydoon Arbabi (Civil &
Environmental Engineering), Andrew Londo (GSC),
Darrell Smith (Met and Mat Eng), Allan Johnson (Mining
Engineering) , Duane Thayer (Met and Mat Eng), Glenn
Ekdahl (Wadsworth Hall), Richard Heckel (Met and Mat
Eng) and Peggy Heckel.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vichich MOVED and Mroz seconded the motion to
approve the agenda. The motion to approve PASSED on
voice vote with no dissent. [Appendix A. NOTE: Only
official Senate and Library archival copies of the minutes
will contain a full complement of the appendices.]
4. DISCUSSION OF SURVEY ON TIAA/CREF
RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AND BUDGET
PRIORITIES
President Bornhorst reported that Provost Dobney
told the Board of Control that he would survey the
faculty relative to budget issues. The Board of Control
delayed action on the health care benefits and the
Administration moved forward in preparing a survey to
be sent before Christmas. The Officers requested that the
Senate be permitted to co-sponsor the survey, if they so
chose, and the Provost agreed. A memo was sent to all
Senators on 3 December to call a special meeting to
discuss the survey. On 5 December, the officers met with
the Provost to prepare a draft. The Provost will send that
survey whether the Senate joins or not.
Bornhorst expressed that he felt uneasy about calling
for a motion from the floor since he had already asked
the Provost to provide the Senate this opportunity. He
stated that the Senate should move forward with two
conditions stipulated: 1) the officers would have the
authority to co-prepare the survey with the provost,
based on the discussion tonight; 2) the officers would
have the authority to withdraw Senate sponsorship if no
acceptable compromise on the draft could be reached.
The Senate Assistant distributed the
Provost/Officer's draft to the Senators.
President Bornhorst stated that two things need to be
accomplished: 1) We need to decide if we want to
participate and co-sponsor the survey; 2) If we
participate, what suggested changes do we want.
After permitting 5 minutes for Senators to read the
draft survey, Bornhorst stated that the intention is to
follow Senate standard balloting procedures.
Senator Arici asked if the Senate makes major
changes and the Provost does not agree, will he go alone
and the Senate alone? Bornhorst responded that it
would be up to the Senate.
Senator Williams stated that he prefers to ask the
opinion of his constituents on what kind of survey they
want before making this decision.
Senator Gale added that we need to go to the total
salary amount - that we need more information before
we can make budget recommendations and decisions.
Senator Leifer stated that when he received the
notice of the special meeting, his reaction was that he
internally went up in flames. None of the officers were
ever on the Fringe Benefits Committee and have no
knowledge of the financial issues (three times zero is
zero) and the Provost is numerically challenged. The
Fringe Benefits Committee should be the ones to discuss
this survey with the Provost.
Senator Walck stated that she wanted to know what
kind of survey it would be before she could decide to
send it.
Provost Dobney stated that he had told the Board
that he would survey the faculty and staff on budget
priorities. The TIAA/CREF health care plan is not a
vested benefit and will not secure benefits. He has been
unable to agree with the Fringe Benefits Committee, so
he is unwilling to work with them. Therefore, if the
Senate does not agree to the plan outlined by President
Bornhorst, he will do the survey alone. He will ask the
Ombudsman to collect the survey and will insure
anonymity.
President Bornhorst reiterated that the question is
whether the Senate wants to participate.
Leifer asked if this is an irrevocable document.
Bornhorst responded that it was not.
Senator Gilles stated that we should not look at the
pre-funding issue in isolation, and that the survey
should not be just regarding the salary/benefits pool.
The administration always asks what we are willing to
give up to get new benefits. Gilles stated he is willing to
give up the over expenditures in the Meese Center.
Everybody has a different agenda - MPSERS people
won't give 1% to TIAA/CREF benefits. Therefore, we
are pitting groups against each other. In 1995, the Board
questioned prefunding; the issue is now changed. We
never discussed the 2+2 plan, etc.
Bornhorst corrected him, that the 2+2 plan had been
approved by the Senate and is still on the Provost's desk.
Dobney stated that the decision affects all through
the university budget process. Therefore, he will report
the numbers to the Board by group. He doesn't expect
the MPSERS people to vote for TIAA/CREF increases.
But we will find out how faculty and staff feel about
these issues.
Senator Beck stated that this has never been in his
committee [Finance], so these are his comments: 1) his
name should not be on the survey ballot; 2) at least $2.x
million should be in a trust for those already retired; 3)
the documents describing the conditions of benefits need
to be changed. For example, item 4.1 in the benefits
allows the President to change the benefits on an
individual basis for any reason; that needs to be cleared
up.
Senator Mroz stated that Dobney must report to the
Board. If the question is how to take care of retirees,
shouldn't we [TIAA/CREF participants] get in the same
pool as the rest who are cared for [i.e. get the same
benefits as those in MPSERS]?
Senator Arbabi suggested that the questions on
prefunding and on other matters of faculty benefits and
salary should be decoupled. The Fringe Benefits
Committee had looked at the cost of the two plans in the
long run and thought that the pay-as-you-go plan would
cost more. Dobney responded that if we use a pay-as-you-go plan, that $500,000 we are now spending to fund
the retiree health care plan would be available for the
2+2 plan.
Senator Seely stated that he had gone to the Board
meeting and is convinced that nothing will move the
Board to secure the plan. Dobney had stated in that
meeting that the plan should not have to face a review
every six months. Board Lawyer Vercruysse
immediately took the podium and responded that
nothing should be construed in any way as a permanent
benefit. "The plan" proposed by Dobney has wording to
permit a more long-term security [putting it into the base
budget]. He asked Dobney if he is getting some sense
from the Board that they would try to continue the
retiree health care benefits. Dobney responded that
many members of the Board have looked carefully and
challenge keeping the benefits; they argue that we can't
afford them. Three members of the board who will
continue on the Board after January are opposed to
keeping those benefits. He has been trying to find a way
to afford the benefits and guarantee their continuation
by budgeting them in the base budget. He has been
pushing the concept that if someone retires and the
expectation of these benefits is in place, that person
should be entitled to continuation of the benefit. The
Board has not been persuaded. Dobney differs with the
Fringe Benefits Committee in how to make this
continuation happen.
Senator Sandberg stated that if the money is put in
the TIAA/CREF retirement fund, it is guaranteed [e.g.
the 2+2 plan]. Senator Gale suggested that if it is put
into a Prudential or similar fund, then the Board can't
touch the money, if the Board is willing to do that.
Senator Sloan stated that the Provost is committed to
make a survey, and she has no problem with that. The
question is whether we should participate. However,
there are problems with the timing of the meeting, the
way the meeting was called, and the Provost's statement
that he can't work with the Committee. This is not a
model of how to work on an item of mutual interest. It
would compromise the normal way we work to proceed.
Bornhorst thanked Senator Sloan for bringing us
back to the main topic of the debate. He commented that
the timing resulted because the Provost wanted the
results before Christmas. He took Sloan's statement as
an objection to his ruling that we should participate.
Williams again stated that he would like to poll his
constituents on the nature of the ballot. Gale argued that
the Senators were chosen by their constituents and
should be able to make decisions.
Arbabi asked if we must agree to this draft.
Bornhorst responded, "no."
Arbabi then presented an alternate ballot designed
by the Fringe Benefits Committee. It emphasized the
fringe benefits first, then the other budget items,
stressing that these should be two separate issues.
Provost Dobney stated that the survey is not about
whether or not to have the health care benefits. But the
budget issues related to funding them cannot be
divorced from the rest of the budget.
Senator Gilles stated that there should be room for
compromise. Otherwise we get what the Provost has
presented. There are 12 retirees under 65. This is a
nickel and dime issue compared to the travel budgets for
administrators, etc. The quality of the faculty is what
brings the students here.
Senator Whitt asked if Dobney and Arbabi could get
together and come up with something acceptable.
Senator Gale responded that we need to decide first if we
want to co-sponsor the survey.
Senator Walck asked who decides whether to
continue if we decide to co-sponsor and then can't agree
on the content. Bornhorst responded that it would be the
officers.
Several people objected to voting on whether to
conduct a survey before seeing the survey form. The
Provost responded that it would be the one distributed
unless he agreed otherwise.
The Senate over-ruled the President's decision to co-sponsor the survey by 12 yes [to support] to 19 no by a
secret ballot vote of the full Senate. Therefore, we will
not participate in the Provost's survey.
Senator Seely stated that President Bornhorst had
asked the Board to delay action until the Senate
determined its position. He had inquired in his
department and the input was underwhelming. A
number of constituents were willing to go opposite to the
proposal due to ways certain individuals presented
issues. There needs to be a more cooperative tone. He
would like to see a survey that represents all views.
Bornhorst responded that the Board had asked what
the Senate would do if they waited and he had told them
the Senate wanted time to provide its input.
Senator Arbabi accepted blame for some of the
things Seely had mentioned. He had sent the letter to the
Board in the interest of time, and he felt they were
partially wrong in doing this. He is definitely willing to
cooperate. He would like some of the officers and others
to draft the survey.
Leifer stated that Bornhorst and Seely were being
paranoid. The plan has been well-established over the
course of time. The level payment plan was
unanimously endorsed by the Provost's Task Force.
However, it has been maligned on several grounds. The
Fringe Benefits Committee has the document; let's vote
on it now.
Bornhorst responded that the Fringe Benefits
Committee could make a draft survey form and get
comments back in time for the Senate to approve the
survey so it can be completed before the Board meeting
on 24 January.
Seely stated that dueling surveys don't serve much
purpose. The Senate should therefore give its
recommendations. If there are two surveys, the Board
will probably choose neither.
Senator Vichich stated that we should try to take a
stance of fairness and equity. He thinks that members of
TIAA/CREF are short-changed.
Leifer stated that if we vote that we don't want a
questionnaire, we should discuss and decide. If we get
800 responses to a questionnaire and Dobney gets 56,
then that tells the Board something. If the [health care]
plan fails, Dobney will be at another university as
President. His plan will work a few years.
Bornhorst raised the question if we put a survey out
do you think the Senate also should vote on the issue or
is the survey our opinion. Leifer responded that we are
the representatives of our constituents. Arbabi added
that the Board might not pay attention. Beck suggested
we should survey all Senators and put it as an
emergency proposal.
Arici suggested that the survey should come from
the President of the Senate through the Senate Assistant.
The Fringe Benefits Committee and Officers should draft
it. Gilles countered that the Fringe Benefits Committee
had put a lot of effort into this; they are trying to do the
job we want done. The Board feels that the only
reasonable way to offer the benefits is to prefund them.
Flynn (Fringe Benefits Committee member) added that
the Board initially mandated prefunding.
Walck stated that the faculty and staff are being
surveyed to death. An E-mail questionnaire will not get
all the information we need. We need to educate people.
However, the survey will be more credible with the
Board than a statement by the Senate. It will take some
time. The Provost's survey will go out soon. We should
tell people that the Senate will also survey them after the
first of the year.
Vichich suggested that the President select members
from the Fringe Benefits Committee, the Finance
Committee, and the Elections Committee to work on the
initial draft.
Mroz stated that if people receive two surveys, they
will expect that something is going to happen. The
Senate needs to work to get something done and to act
responsibly.
Whitt stated that the Provost ruled out compromise.
Flynn asked what the Senate had in mind, a clearer
survey? Walck agreed.
Senator Santeford stated that other things are more
fundamental. For example, Wausau forces us to stay in
Houghton when we retire if we are to obtain our
benefits. Beck responded that we can go to Mayo if our
doctor recommends it; we have to pay more or be
referred by a Wausau plan doctor. Goodrich (Tech
Topics) added that if we leave the area, we still have the
same benefits as before the Wausau plan.
Leifer stated that he agrees with educating people.
However, it is difficult to educate without putting in a
bias. The majority of the Fringe Benefits Committee are
in favor of prefunding. Their committee came up with
numbers that could be provided. For example, the
present retirees average about 3/year. This would cost
$1440/couple/year. To be concerned over $4320 is
absurd.
Bornhorst reminded the Senate that he needed the
authority to send the E-mail message to announce that
the survey may come.
Gilles MOVED and Nesbitt seconded the motion to
grant President Bornhorst the authority to send an E-mail message to the faculty and staff announcing that the
survey may occur.
Moore stated that if the surveys are dueling, no one
will have credibility. We should know what kind of
argument we want to make.
Bornhorst stated that Leifer made a good point, that
we need to try to keep the bias out when we prepare the
survey. The motion to grant the President authority to
send the E-mail announcement of the upcoming survey
PASSED on voice vote with dissent.
He suggested that we will use the survey presented
by Arbabi as the document for discussion. No one
objected. The Senate office will serve as coordinator for
comments on the message and the survey form.
The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the Senate