Civil Service Committee Meeting Minutes

Thursday, May 27, 2010

9:00 a.m. ~ 12:00 p.m.

Morrill Hall, 300

 

[In these minutes ~ Office of Conflict Resolution update; Benefits adjustments update]

 

Present:  Karen Lovro (chair), Alex Jokela, Frank Strahan, Pat Roth, Susan Cable-Morrison, Nancy Fulton, Susan Rafferty, Rick Densmore, Don Cavalier

 

Regrets:  Josette Barsness, Sandeep Kataria, Roxy McCann, Karen Ellis, Carolyn Davidson

 

Absent:  Gary Willhite

 

Guests:  Amy Lewis, University Libraries; Randy Croce, CAPA representative; Carolyn Chalmers, director, Office of Conflict Resolution; Jackie Singer, director, Employee Benefits

 

Chair Lovro called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.  Members approved the March and April meeting minutes unanimously.

 

ChairÕs Report ~ Karen Lovro

 

Chair Lovro stated that she and Mr. Strahan met with Patti Dion, Director, Employee Benefits, and she reported that there were indications of layoffs in the near future.  She said Dion explained that the current economy is making it difficult to make ends meet and Human Resources is looking at what individual units are doing to maintain their workforce.  Lovro said administration is making use of the RECESS program and they are considering extending it as well as continuing to encourage employees to take additional furlough days if they wish, not to surpass the 10-day limit. 

 

Lovro said that the work toward developing a centralized seniority list for Civil Service employees needed to continue.  Members again discussed the problems arising from the lack thereof. 

 

Chair Lovro said that the Employee Reward, Recognition, and Appreciation Committee met on Wednesday, May 25th.  Representatives from various units reported their progress on gathering data from outside sources on employee recognition, which she stated has been a challenge.  Lovro informed members that the committee would be submitting a presentation to Carol Carrier to highlight ideas for employee recognition while keeping in mind the limited budget.  Lovro said an earlier recommendation of continuing an overall employee recognition program for 2010-11 has been approved. 

 

Lovro said that she and Mr. Strahan are discussing visits to the Morris and Rochester campuses.  She said they would like to schedule them at a time best suited to reach the greatest number of constituents as well as the most executive administrators on each campus.  She said they will continue to work with both campuses to schedule a visit.

 

Lovro said the senate workgroup is making good progress and that their next meeting will be on June 1st from 1:30 ~ 2:30 p.m. in Morrill Hall, 510.  She said an invitation has been extended to all Civil Service University Senators as well as Sarah Waldemar, chair, CAPA, in order to inform them of CSCÕs initiative and receive feedback.  She encouraged interested members to attend as well. 

 

Chair Lovro received a request for a Civil Service Committee member to serve on the 2010-11 Community Fund Drive.  She said she has participated in the past and enjoyed being a part of a great cause.  She encouraged members to think about participating.  Pat Roth volunteered to serve on the Community Fund Drive Planning Committee as the CSC representative. 

 

Lovro informed members that Peg Wolff is no longer able to chair the Civil Service Committee Appointments Subcommittee.  She said she thinks there is a good pool of candidates and she would be willing to chair it.  Members were supportive of her suggestion and offer to chair. 

 

Vice Chair Report ~ Frank Strahan

 

Mr. Strahan stated that he went to meet with the University LibrariesÕ Civil Service employees to give a Civil Service Committee update.  He stated that there were several unhappy attendees concerned about the furlough and merit pay distribution.  He said they are also concerned with possible layoffs and would like to have a seniority list and they wonder why Human Resources does not provide that.  Strahan said he is drafting a resolution in support of a University-wide seniority list to send to the University Senate.  He said he will email the draft to members and would like a vote online to expedite the process.  Ms. Cable-Morrison suggested inviting a Libraries representative so that they can distribute CSC meeting information back to their unit quicker.  Amy Lewis, University Libraries, stated that she would be available to attend the meetings.  Ms. Rafferty stated that she was not informed of any plans for layoffs at this time but relayed to administration that that is the perception in the University community.

 

Communications ~ Frank Strahan

 

Mr. Strahan reported that the e-In Touch Newsletter had not yet been distributed and added that he did not receive any input from CSC subcommittees.  So, the Newsletter will be light.  He reminded members of the need to elect officers for next year and again encouraged them to serve. 

 

Budget ~ Alex Jokela

 

Mr. Jokela reported that he is awaiting two professional development requests from Roxy McCann and will reserve the maximum reward of $200 each until acceptance and amount is determined.  He said should both be awarded, the professional development funds will be depleted for the year.  Jokela reported that committee funds are at approximately $6,800 currently. 

 

 

 

 

Joint Resolution on Faculty Support for Inclusion of University Governance Activities ~ Randy Croce, coordinator, Labor Education Services

 

Chair Lovro introduced Mr. Randy Croce and asked him to share his goal with members.  Mr. Croce gave a brief history about the resolution stating that the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) recognized a need for the support of governance by the faculty community at the University.  He said that although there are many units where governance participation is supported and encouraged, there are others with little to no participation or encouragement.  He mentioned research sciences as one that is lacking and CAPA became concerned that there are constituents in the community with little or no connection to or involvement with University governance.  He stated that the resolution had originated to represent CAPA but committee members realized that Civil Service employees were equally under-supported and wanted to invite the CSC to participate in the resolution to add strength in numbers.  He said their goal is to put the importance of representation in the forefront of the University community so that those who want to participate will hopefully be supported to do so.  Mr. Croce stated that if they were interested in teaming up on the resolution, CAPA would simply add their committee name to the resolution and send it to the CSC first for a vote before forwarding it on to the Senate.  Croce said there is a concern for those who are supported by grants that require 100% of their time be spent working on grant related work.  Ms. Cable-Morrison said she believes there currently is a provision in their contracts that allows for attendance to meetings and that this provision may provide all the language necessary.  Ms. Roth suggested broadening the inclusions statement to include subcommittees and other governing bodies that are not Senate subcommittees. 

 

Benefits and Compensation ~ Nancy Fulton

 

Ms. Fulton reported that the Benefits Advisory Committee is reviewing the health and insurance benefits plan.  She said there will be some changes but is unable to give any detail at this time.  She noted that an email was sent out from administration to notify the University community that beginning July 1, 2010, employeesÕ will be able to cover their dependent children up to age 26 on their health benefits. 

 

Professional Development

 

There was no Professional Development report available for the meeting. 

 

Advocacy ~ Susan Cable-Morrison & Josette Barsness

 

Ms. Cable-Morrison reported that there was a JEQ appeal but it was not an advocacy issue.  She added that there were two previous advocacy issues that she was awaiting progress on but has not heard back from either constituent and is assuming the issues have been resolved. 

 

Mr. Jokela reported that he met with a constituent in Duluth asking for representation at a discipline citation meeting.  The meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, May 26th, which is when she became aware that she could have representation at the meeting with her. She requested a postponement of the meeting until Jokela was available to go to the meeting with her.  At the time of todayÕs meeting, Jokela is not sure if her request for postponement was granted. 

 

Chair Lovro noted that there is a joint JEQ appeal in the works on behalf of some administrative directors in Facilities Management.  She said that the results of the original JEQ stated the employees in question were not, in fact, doing the work of an administrative director resulting in the potential for a reduced appointment. 

 

Rules ~ Susan Cable-Morrison

 

Ms. Cable-Morrison reported that the Rules Subcommittee did not meet in May.  She stated that the Subcommittee has shifted their meeting time/duration to meet as needed when issues arise and focus on specific rules that may be in question rather than meeting for three hours every month with no specific focus. 

 

Cable-Morrison said she has been working to collaborate with Patti Dion on revisions to the language of the sick leave rules but they have been unable to meet thus far.  She said she is remaining flexible to DionÕs schedule to meet and review the revisions with a hope for an outcome by the end of this fiscal year. 

 

Senate Delegations ~ Karen Lovro

 

Chair Lovro mentioned to members that the two candidates sent by Karen Ellis via email could not be voted on due to lack of a quorum and suggested voting on them via email.  Members concurred. 

 

Office for Conflict Resolution (OCR) Policy Update ~ Carolyn Chalmers

 

Ms. Chalmers began by informing members of the necessity to review the OCR policy every five years.  She stated that the Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee as well as a workgroup of other stakeholders does the initial review.  It is the format, substance and guidelines they make recommendations on and create a draft of the updated policy, which is then sent to several other entities for review including the RegentÕs Office and the ProvostÕs Office. 

 

Chalmers said one of the main formatting changes they suggested was to streamline process information by putting it all under the administrative procedure section instead of various sections.  She highlighted a summary of changes to the administrative procedures as follows:

 

*Change the arbitration process to streamline it, encourage the use of Minnesota arbitrators, establish an estimated arbitrator fee of $3,500 (shared equally by the University and the petitioner), and provide for University payment of fees exceeding $3,500.

 

*Increase the number of hearing officers from three to four in each employment group.

 

*Change the process for jurisdictional determinations to have the Director (rather than a Hearing Officer) make the initial decision and permit a party to request review by the Provost.

 

*Continue to define an attorney as a person with a Juris Doctorate degree even if not licensed to practice law in Minnesota.  This is a significant definition because the policy provides that the University respondent cannot be represented by an attorney in the formal process unless the petitioner is an attorney or is represented by an attorney.

 

*Communicate realistic timelines for the formal petition process.

 

*Specify that the DirectorÕs responsibilities include educational programming and outreach.

 

*For petitioners considering whether to submit an internal discrimination complaint in the Office for Conflict Resolution or in the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, clarify the differences between the processes in the two offices.

 

*Continue to send new petitions to the senior administrator of the unit in which the petitioner is employed.

 

Ms. Chalmers said one of the biggest problems for employees who want to pursue their issues to arbitration is they do not know what to expect in arbitrator fees and therefore, often do not choose arbitration.  She stated that Civil Service employees are the most frequent users of arbitration and their salaries are on the lower side of the pay scale, which is why many do not go to arbitration with their issue.  Therefore, the ability to have arbitration becomes a non-benefit if they cannot afford it.  Another downfall of unregulated expenses in the past has been that arbitrators have gone unpaid due to the employeeÕs inability to do so, especially if they remain unemployed.  She thinks capping the fees will help eliminate doubt and non-payment and allow the employee to make a more informed decision. 

 

Chalmers said that for petitioners who want to go to arbitration, they are encouraging the use of arbitrators from Minnesota.  The Bureau of Mediation Services selects five mediators randomly from a list of about 20 arbitrators and the parties to the arbitration then take turns choosing among the five.  She said she thinks it is a good system.  She stated that hearings should be completed within one to two days.  She added that the arbitrator needs to provide a decision and written opinion but it need not be lengthy.  The arbitrator may run the meeting as they wish but it is o.k. for the panel to offer process suggestions. 

 

Chair Lovro asked if there has been an increase in service use due to the current budget crisis.  Ms. Chalmers said there has not been many termination cases this past year.  She continued, stating that she thinks there are increased conflict cases stemming from appointment changes and cost cutting but she thinks there is also an increased caution in the community to come forward.  Ms. Rafferty said there has been an increase in contract non-renewal and that there will probably be more layoffs. 

 

Ms. Chalmers said the policy documents are on the OCR website along with tools and tips for employees such as performance review negotiations, how to have difficult conversations, vacation planning, etc.  She encouraged input from members and said she hopes to have the revised policy approved some time this summer.  Lovro suggested to Strahan a mention of the policy be put in the next e-In Touch Newsletter.

 

 

 

 

Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) Update ~ Jackie Singer

 

Ms. Singer distributed a document provided by the MSRS, www.msrs.state.mn.us, delineating the benefit adjustments and informed members that there are several modifications to benefits for active, deferred and retired employees in an effort to provide stability to the MSRS Retirement Plans.  She stated that Governor Pawlenty signed the Omnibus Pension Bill into law on May 15, 2010 and with that, all MSRS legislature has been rolled into one Bill. 

 

Singer spoke about funding levels and as of June 30, 2007, the General Plan administered by MSRS was about 95 percent funded. A 5 percent market decline in fiscal year 2008, followed by a 19 percent loss in fiscal year 2009, decreased the Plan's funding ratio to a level below 70 percent. Since June 30, 2009, she explained that the Plan has experienced significant recovery with strong investment gains of about 15 percent. The investment gains have helped stabilize the funding and the Plan is now over 70 percent funded, but there is still progress to be made to return to full funding.  She said to achieve the goal to reach full funding, the MSRS Board of Directors began making strides through 2006 legislation to gradually increase contribution rates for both employees and employers over three to four years.  The chart provided in her handout shows how the increases in rates were phased in to ease the burden for employees of the General, Correctional, and State Patrol Plans and their employers. To continue its efforts to reach full funding, she stated that the MSRS Board recommended other types of benefit adjustments in the 2010 Session, which will lower current and future liabilities. All of these various changes made over a period of time will help improve the overall funding of the retirement plans.  Singer said that July 1, 2010 will be the final employee increase to the plan and they will seek out other ways to keep the plan sustainable. 

 

Singer said there are nine suggested solutions to maintain the solvency of the retirement fund, the first six of which pertain to Civil Service employees, and they are as follows:

 

1.         Lower future Post-Retirement Adjustments

Under current law, benefit recipients receive a 2.5 percent increase each January 1. Retirees in all MSRS retirement plans, except the State Patrol Plan, will now receive 2 percent beginning January 1, 2011. State Patrol Plan retirees will receive 1.5 percent per year. Post-Retirement Adjustments will return to 2.5 percent per year when the retirement plan reaches 90 percent funded.

 

2.         Reinstate waiting period for initial Post-Retirement Adjustments

The law will extend the waiting period for the initial Post-Retirement Adjustments back six months. Currently, a person who retires any time during the year is eligible for a prorated increase the next January 1. Under the proposal, only employees who retire before July 1 will be eligible for a prorated increase the following January. Increases are prorated depending on which month the person retires. For example, a person who ends their service in January under the proposal would receive 6/12 (one-half) of next January's increase. If the increase is 2 percent, a January retiree's first increase would be 1 percent.

 

 

3.         Lower interest on refunds

            The law reduces interest paid on refunds from 6 percent to 4 percent.

 

4.         Reduce the benefit increases for members who terminate service and plan on collecting monthly benefits in future years (deferred members)

Employees who are vested can keep their contributions in the MSRS retirement plans and collect benefits when they reach retirement age. Under the current method of determining a deferred member's benefit amount, their base amount is increased by 3% per year until January 1 following the member's 55th birthday, and 5% per year thereafter. The new law lowers all future deferred augmentation to 2% in future years after December 31, 2011. Current terminated employees would retain the higher accrued rate for the past years, but for all future years the benefits would be increased by 2% instead of 3 or 5 percent.

 

While cutting this benefit saves money, it also makes sense from a retirement plan policy perspective. At the current rate, some employees who leave state service and wait to collect monthly benefits, results in getting higher benefits than if they continued to work and contributed to MSRS. The 5 percent rate increase after age 55 is extremely costly and has led to fairly generous benefit increases. Terminated employees over age 55 are eligible to collect monthly benefits, if they prefer, rather than waiting to collect and letting their monthly benefits increase. It still will be attractive for deferred members to wait to collect, because the penalty for early retirement also lessens every year.

 

5.         Eliminate interest on suspended benefits for re-employed retirees

Retirees who return to state employment, or to any employment normally covered by MSRS, have their retirement benefits suspended when they earn more than the earnings limit ($14,160 in 2010). Any suspended amounts are paid back to retirees one year after they terminate from their re-employed positions. Currently, 6% interest is added to the suspended amount - the new law eliminates interest after December 31, 2010.

 

6.         Increase vesting for future hires

Currently, most employees become vested (eligible for monthly benefits) after three years of service.  The new law changes vesting to five years for future employees (hired after June 30, 2010) covered by the General and State Patrol Plans and graded ten years year vesting for future employees covered by the Correctional Plan. Graded vesting means that the retirement benefit is 50% vested after five years - increasing 10 percent each additional year of service until fully vested after 10 years.

 

Ms. Singer added that employees were allowed to buy back service and salary credit for the furlough time they take for the purpose of credit towards their retirement.  The provision states that a furloughed employee of the University of Minnesota who is a member of the general state employees retirement plan of the Minnesota State Retirement System may obtain allowable service credit and salary credit for the furlough period. The allowable service and salary credit authorization under this section is a leave of absence authorization for purposes of section 352.017 and the purchase payment procedure of section 352.017, subdivision 2, applies.  This section is effective the day following final enactment.

 

Chair Lovro asked if Ms. Singer could write short paragraph for the e-In Touch Newsletter touching on the major effects of changes and she agreed to do so. 

 

Office of Human Resources (OHR) Update ~ Susan Rafferty

 

Ms. Rafferty reported that the furlough FAQ section on the OHR website has been updated.  Ms. Singer stated she would have the MSRS information posted on the website as well.  She told members to send her any ideas they may have that would be a beneficial addition to the webpage. 

 

As aforementioned, Rafferty reiterated the health insurance benefits for employeesÕ adult children, up to age 26 beginning July 1, 2010. 

 

Rafferty reported that the Wellness Program, which includes Weight Watchers and Create Your Weight programs are doing well.  She said new sessions will be launching in June.

 

Rafferty said that she did not have specific information on layoffs or non-renewals but she is aware of the conversational buzz taking place on campus.  She reminded members of the assistance OHR provides in the area of career support and resources, resume preparation and job searching assistance.  She encouraged members to relay that information to anyone who may need it.  She said they also have employee benefits counselors that can help explain the layoff process, options as well as benefits and resources. 

 

Ms. Rafferty stated that this yearÕs Pulse Survey has been completed and they received greater response than in the last three years.  She said OHR continues to work with units and act on the feedback they have received.  She noted that results would be available online in early July. 

 

Rafferty said there is a new online Exit Survey for those leaving the University for whatever reason.  She said the survey is anonymous and they hope people will fill it out so that they can use the information to work on employee retention. 

 

Chair Lovro raised a concern about the layoff rumors on campus and the damage it does.  She asked if there is a communication vehicle that can be used to squelch the rumors.  Rafferty said they use a system called AEL to communicate with the University community.  She suggested that should any members hear unfounded rumors to please relay them to her and she will put a message out with correct information. 

 

Senate Committee Workgroup Update ~ Karen Lovro

 

Chair Lovro reported that at the last workgroup meeting, Becky Hippert, University Senate Office, produced some wonderful organizational charts to give a visual of the Civil Service SenateÕs place in governance should they move forward.  She said they had a conversation about how coordinate campus representation would work and she is in the process of updating the representational breakdown should they become a Senate.  Lovro hopes to have a final recommendation of direction for members by June 1st.  Lovro stated that the workgroup would make their recommendation to the CSC at the June 17th year-end meeting.  She said she would like to see a motion to vote on the issues at the June meeting, but if conversations are still going on, the vote could be postponed.  Lovro said she wants open communication with the full committee and invited their input.  Ms. Fulton said it would be helpful if members could obtain the final draft of the proposal prior to June in order to have time to digest the information.  Lovro said it is her goal to do so.

 

Hearing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 a.m.

 

Lisa Towry

University Senate Office