[In these minutes: Report of the Subcommittee on the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee, HPTF Final Report]

HEALTH PLAN TASK FORCE (HPTF)

MINUTES

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2000
10:00 - 12:00
210 DONHOWE BUILDING

[These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represent the view of, nor are they binding on the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.]

PRESENT: Dick McGehee (Chair), Linda Aaker, Mary Austin, Avner Ben-Ner, Susan Brorson, Carol Carrier, Amos Deinard, Keith Dunder, Robert Fahnhorst, George Green, Bev Hall, David Hamilton, Christopher Hulla, Kathryn Pouliot, Gailon Roen, Harlan Smith, Anna Sommers, Robert Sonkowsky, Larry Thompson, Gavin Watt.

REGRETS: Allan Baumgarten, Priscilla Pope.

ABSENT: Marjorie Cowmeadow, Bart Finzel, Ron Kubik, Sue Mauren, Jason Reed.

1. REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Lind Aaker distributed a draft Affiliated Benefits Committee charge and noted that there were two issue to discuss: finalizing the charge including authority for the committee and what the membership and membership selection should be. The draft notes that:

• Each employee group selects four representatives, except retirees
  
• Each coordinate campus sends one representative, selected by each campus assembly
  
• 21 members on the committee
  
• Bargaining units would serve as ex officio members

Sue Rafferty, from the Office of the General Counsel, noted that the only ex officio members should be members of the administration; bargaining units should not have seats. Graduate assistants could be ex officio, but not participate as full members until they are included in the University's plan.

Linda Aaker noted that there is a union problem at Duluth. There is not an actual Duluth bargaining unit, and Duluth does not want to bargain separately, so why could they not serve on the committee. Susan Rafferty was asked this question but there was no response.

Members then made the following comments:

• Unions might be able to participate if there is advance commitment or a union waiver to participate
  
• Can everyone participate as has been the practice with the HPTF?
  
• Participation might depend on a group's status
  
• More legal clarity is needed from Susan Rafferty
  
• There might be a preference to just invite union representatives when needed
  
• Closed sessions of the committee would allow ex officio members to be excused
  
• Could union representatives on the committee compromise the bargaining process?
  
• Ex officio status could have legal implications, which is why more information is needed
  
• Language regarding excusing groups should be included
  
• More similarities exist between health plans on the coordinate campuses
  
• Campus groups should decide which representative to send
  
• Proportionality will be affected if each campus decides who they send as a representative (i.e. each coordinate campus elects a faculty member as their representative). Arbitration at the top is needed for balance.
  
• Retirement plans, such as MSRS and FRP should not be included in the scope of the committee
  
• New committee needs to be involved in any RFI or RFP
  
• This charge is simply a recommendation to the administration and all employee groups
  
• Proposed charge should not be tailored to what the administration wants but should reflect what the HPTF feels is best needed
  
• Should the scope of the committee be limited to health insurance or cover all benefits since changes in one benefit affects the others?
  
• Should one employee group be voting on benefits that are only provided to another group?
  
• Committee should inherit the seats that the University has on the Joint Labor Management Committee

Dick McGehee said that the Faculty Senate asked that access to University providers be put back into the final report since this was an issue in the past. The task force did discuss this item and decided that it was a non-issue either because employees currently have access or they do not care. The only place that specific HMO's were mentioned during this process was in the RFI response. Task force members agreed that specific providers should not be mentioned in the recommendations, but might be included in the background.

Harlan Smith, speaking on behalf of the retirees, asked that access to Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Health Partners, and University providers be included, as well as improved out-of-state coverage.

Dick McGehee noted that the issue is not specific providers, but continued continuity of care with current providers. Since DOER has not clarified whether the retirees could stay with the state if the University separated, it was decided that the retirees' requests should be added to the retirees findings section of the report.

It was then noted that bargaining unit retirees are included in the faculty retirees pool and are not covered by the bargaining unit, so the retirees group could be bigger than originally estimated.

Dick McGehee then asked whether a sanitized version of the RFI responses should be included in the final report. The task force felt that since the proposed charges were non-binding and so much information would be withheld that more people would be confused rather than helped so the RFI responses should be withheld.

Members then suggested editorial changes to the text of the report.

With no further comments, Professor McGehee thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Rebecca Hippert
University Senate