Meeting Minutes for June 26, 2001

Present: Jake Baggott (ex officio), Vicki Benson (ex officio), Kathy Blackwell (ex officio), Brian Chapman (Chancellor's Representative), Kevin Dorsey (Dean's Council), Linda Grace (Faculty Senate), Patricia Hopkins-Price (Faculty Senate), Jim Hunsaker (ex officio), Worthen Hunsaker (Chancellor's Representative), Aslam Kassimali (Faculty Association), David Marx (A/P Staff Council), Andy Morgan (A/P Staff Council), Roland Person (Faculty Association), James Swisher (Emeritus Association).

Absent: Art Aikman, (ex officio), Steve Kraft (Graduate Council), Joann Marks (Civil Service Council), Ruth Pommier (Civil Service Council), Thomas Stitt (ex officio).

I. Announcements - None.

II. Approval of Minutes of April 24, 2001 
The minutes were approved as presented.

III. Approval of Agenda of June 26, 2001 
The agenda was approved as presented.

IV. Updates from Human Resources 
Jim H. reported: a) benefits choice period went very well. There was a good response to the new plan offering this year. Many people made the change from Health Alliance to Health Link; b) Human Resources is in the process of converting from PPIS to AIS. That process has kept them very busy. It is hoped the transition will be seamless; c) he will meet with the Emeritus Insurance Committee on June 29 to discuss any questions the retirees may have.

V. Subcommittee on Health Benefits 
A) David reported there is still the issue of membership on the subcommittee. He pointed out this is the last meeting of the committee as a whole before the membership changes in the fall. He suggested that since the process of volunteering did not work, perhaps the committee might want to consider assigning members to serve on this subcommittee.

B) Jim S. reported the state-wide Health Annuitants Association is taking applications for their new long-term health care plan. He organized a workshop about a month ago, with approximately 85 people in attendance. Most were existing retirees rather than current employees or new retirees. Jim S. indicated he was under the impression Human Resources was going to help organize the workshop, but that did not happen. Jim H. responded that he offered to contact some of the more recent retirees and was able to contact three or four people. He did not believe [attendance] was a priority because of the space limit for the workshop. Jim S. believes the long-term health care plan is a hot topic because there are many people over age 50 who are concerned about long-term health care. The word needs to get out because a state-wide plan coming out in September, and no one has any details about the plan. Kathy indicated Human Resources offered mailing labels of individuals who are 55 [and over] and is still willing to do so. Jim S. stated he received a letter from the state indicating they would conduct their own mass mailing and would provide information in university newsletters and such. Jim H. stated that at retirement counseling, employees are being told that this option is available through the Emeritus Association and to contact that office if they want more information. Andy asked if an employee had to be retired to take advantage of the long-term care. Jim S. responded the employee has to be eligible to be a member of the Emeritus Association, which means age 50 or over, and has to have a certain number of years of service so s/he could take early retirement if s/he wanted. It was noted the premiums go up with age.

C) Jim S. reported the improvements in Unicare that were won by AFSCME are included in the booklets for this year, although he is unsure how it will work out for the second and third year. He pointed out someone was supposed to check on the question of whether the University's unions could negotiate health benefits. Brian was to ask someone in Vice Chancellor Poshard's office, and then there was just a general request of the people affiliated with the unions to see what they could find out. Aslam reported the Faculty Association contract has a section that states that during the term of the agreement, the Association will take the state's health care benefits; however, it is clearly implied that the Association has the right to negotiate. That does not mean the administration will agree. He believed the main issue was whether AFSCME is legally entitled to negotiate on behalf of [SIU employees]. Brian stated he did check on whether the University's health care benefits are different than AFCSME's, and they are not. He believes the philosophy is the same with respect to one union wanting to negotiate its own health care package. It is not feasible to have all the unions negotiating separate health care packages, so the largest union in the state negotiates the package, which then applies to all the other smaller unions in the state. Aslam stated the issue is not whether [various unions] should negotiate. The issue is that in the past there have been complaints that AFSCME has negotiated away some of [the University employees'] benefits in return for some retirement benefits, and the retirement plans are not the same. AFSCME may give up something in the area of health insurance to gain something in the area of retirement; and because of that everyone else suffers. The point is where do [the unions] stand legally. Jim S. stated it is not just the legal standing but also the political standing within the respective unions and how each cooperates with the other. He believes that should be of more concern. It is through those channels that the unions have a better means to have influence on the negotiation process versus how that can be accomplished legally. Jim S. stated there could also be a consortium that negotiates with the state rather than just one large union. Then everyone has the same plan, but the various unions would have a voice. He indicated he tried approaching AFCSME about working together on some of these things but received no cooperation.

D) Jim S. reported the committee has discussed from time to time Medicare B and what kind of guidelines there are in terms of who has to take it if they are eligible. He called SURS about this and was told that everybody that is eligible is expected to sign up and pay for Medicare B.

VI. Subcommittee on Retirement Benefits and Annuties 
A) David reported Steve still has not received the results of the survey conducted by A.G. Monoco on tax sheltered annuities (TSA). Jim S. indicated Mr. Monoco had sent a disk, but it was only data from the questionnaires and not something that was in a discernable form. Jim S. stated he has been attempting for the past two years to get some kind of review of the various TSAs offered by SIU, but has not had much success. There has never been an in-depth review of the TSAs. He also met with Vice Chancellor Bill Capie about a year ago and was told the reason his office does not want to take a stand on this is because it is an SIU-wide benefit; therefore, it should be the President's office that handles the issue. It was after that Mr. Monoco agreed to do the survey. However, the issue dragged on and on and the information he provided on the disk was just quesions/responses filled out by a few of the vendors. As a result, Jim S. indicated he wrote a letter to President Walker asking what can be done about this problem. The matter has been referred to Don Wilson. Mr. Wilson has not yet had time to review the issue, and it will probably be mid-July before he can give the President his thoughts on the matter. That is where it stands now. Jim S. indicated if there is a response by the September meeting, he will mail it out to the committee.

B) Jake asked about the status of the SURS buy-back option. Kathy responded that Human Resources is working on accommodating the payroll deduction through PPIS and/or AIS and hopes to have it in place by October 1. However, it first requires a Board of Trustees resolution to move forward. This issue will be on the agenda for the Board meeting on July 12. Things are progressing.

VII. Old Business 
A) David reported the sick leave pool proposal was sent to Interim Chancellor Jackson, who then referred the matter to Associate Vice Chancellor Pam Brandt. Pam responded with seven points, some of which the committee had already discussed. David indicated he did not believe many of the points in Pam's letter were valid. He got in touch with some [committee members] as to forming a response to Pam's response. David pointed out that there is a new chancellor coming in, and the situation may be different with him. He comes from a state where sick leave banks are mandatory at all state agencies, and he has first-hand experience with the sick leave pool scenario. It is possible he may be more inclined to address the proposal. David believed it would be useful, in addition to resubmitting the proposal, to illustrate ways in which this could be beneficial to various groups of employees by showing examples where employees who have run out of sick leave could really use this type of program. David asked the committee what it believed would be the best way to respond to Pam's letter. Brian suggested researching some of these issues in Texas and see what kind of system they have there. David stated when he prepared the proposal he had taken input from Texas and Mississippi; both those states have legislatively-enacted programs in all state agencies. In addition, he took 10 universities around the country, including Urbana, where these programs are in existence, and they are doing very well. David again asked the committee how it wanted to proceed on this issue. The consensus was to continue to examine the issues and address the points raised in Pam's letter. This information could then be provided to Steve for his meeting with the new chancellor.

B) David reported Steve will meet with Chancellor Wendler on July 19. Steve would like the committee to provide him with some topics of discussion for this meeting. In addition, he intends to invite the Chancellor, as well as Vice Chancellor Poshard, to the committee's next meeting. With respect to issues to be raised with the Chancellor, it was suggested the Chancellor be educated on the committee's role and representation. Also, Steve should go over some of the issues the committee has been dealing with, such as the sick leave pool, staffing for Human Resources, and the legality of AFSCME negotiating for all other unions in the state.

VIII. New Business 
Linda Grace was introduced as the new Faculty Senate representative, replacing Doug McEwen in the role of chair of the Senate's Faculty Status and Welfare Committee. David Marx noted his term on the committee expires this year, and although he will no longer be on the committee, he will continue to assist with the sick leave proposal. Jim S. indicated there is no reason why David or anyone else could not serve on one of the subcommittees.

IX. Adjournment 
The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for September 25.