1. The University is the outlier on the matter of tuition benefits for dependents if one compares it with other institutions in the state and in the Big Ten. MNSCU and the private institutions offer such benefits, as do seven of the eleven Big Ten schools. We are also well aware that members of the public are surprised to learn that University faculty and staff receive no break on tuition for their dependents.

2. We see the tuition benefit for dependents as one step toward the possibility of a tuition-reciprocity pact among employees of Big Ten or CIC schools. It is not possible to enter such a pact, should it be created, if the institution does not offer tuition benefits to its own employees.

3. Many of us on the Committee are aware of examples where a valued colleague has left the University, recruited away in part because our competitor was able to offer tuition benefits to his or her children/dependents. Adopting a tuition benefit would not only be a relatively inexpensive way to prevent the loss of at least some of the faculty who will help lead the University to the top three, but would also give us more leverage to recruit stellar faculty from private colleges and universities.

4. We remind the administration of the sophisticated study conducted by Professor Fossum and his colleagues a few years ago, which concluded that the cost of the tuition benefit would be outweighed by the cost to recruit and replace individuals who accept offers from other institutions because of the tuition benefit offered at the competing institution. A tuition benefit reduces employment costs by reducing employee turnover.

5. We are not persuaded by the argument that only 2% of University employees would use the benefit in any one year. We understand that half or more of the University's employees would make use of the benefit during their careers here. It seems to us unlikely that the administration would propose to drop faculty sabbaticals or phased retirement because only a tiny fraction of employees use the benefit in any one year.

6. The Committee continues to believe that a tuition benefit will improve the effectiveness, or at the very least the commitment, of its workforce.

7. We have been told that the question to be addressed, when allocation of resources is at stake, is where the University can get the greatest return on its investment. We accept that as a rational standard for making decisions. We suggest that the calculation would lead one to conclude that the modest amount of money required should be invested in a tuition benefit would generate a return, in employee morale, commitment, and retention, that is greater than many other investments might generate.

As we did last year, we again strongly recommend: