Compensation/Workforce Reduction Think Tank Committee
MINUTES DATE: 11/10/11 TIME: 9:00 A.M. LOCATION: PRESIDENT’S BOARD ROOM
Bob Blizinski; Ruben Ramirez; Jim Matthews; Susan Kitagawa; Lauro Jimenez; Gary Bergstrom; ATTENDEES Lynda Scott; Mary Lisi; Nancy Moll; Fergus Currie; Kim Dozier; Michael Warrington; Barbara Creson.
Agenda topics 1. TOPIC #1 APPROVAL OF PRESENTER: BOB BLIZINSKI MINUTES
DISCUSSION Bob asked for an approval of the minutes. Mary Lisi approved and Lynda Scott seconded, and everyone was in favor.
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE 1. Post minutes on portal. Anita
2. TOPIC #2 – INITIAL PRESENTATION OF PRESENTER: BOB BLIZINSKI RECOMMENDATI ONS
DISCUSSION Would like to present our initial thoughts for recommendations at this meeting and next meeting. These recommendations will be presented to the President. We will start scenario building at next meeting. One committee member thought we should concentrate on: Health & Welfare; 403B Match; Indirect administrative District costs being charged to grants; Stipends; Retirees health & welfare. Need to review figures on the GASB Report and then review for health & welfare for retirees. A committee member mentioned that there was discussion at College Planning Council about individual positions that were to be eliminated and didn’t think that was right. There was a question about whether there would be any savings given the Full Time Obligation being reduced. Estimation would be $300,000 savings. On the faculty prioritization list for fall 2012, the top 2 items is to hire an HVAC and a Biology instructor. Under special circumstances, there could be one Full Time Lead Faculty only running program versus running with adjuncts. Historically, we have had periods of time where our full-time faculty number was above what was needed, but it might have been only one year. The number was about 105 full-time faculty, not significantly over. In some years we couldn’t offer a retirement incentive because we were below the number. We’ve always run so close to the 102 number. It would hurt on the other side as well. In 2002, we were 11 over; in 2008 we were over by 3. Ruben distributed a new Health and Welfare reduction plan indicating only $13,500/person compared to our $15,000/person. This indicated a savings of $490,500. The chart also showed step freeze savings of $531,783.82 and a 5% reduction to those employees at the top of their salaries which showed a savings of $592,643.97.
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE
1.
3. TOPIC #3 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS/ST PRESENTER: BOB BLIZINSKI IPENDS
DISCUSSION Employment Agreements/Stipends was distributed for the past year and the Funding Source in the last column was explained--the I/E represents I=Internal (general fund) and E=External funding (grant funding) and later it was changed to R/U with “R” representing restricted funding (grants) and “U” representing unrestricted funding (general fund). There is a substantial sum of money being spent for these agreements. These numbers are on the Stipends sheet that Misti distributed at last meeting but not indicated in “Longevity”. We need to come up with a policy about stipends. The language where it says “Not to Exceed” seems like people would take advantage and use the full amount allowed. Bob sometimes gets the contract for approval after the work has been started. Is there a quality control about whether the work has been done? Agreements for private music lessons were brought up as to whether this should be included as part of the faculty’s general duties. It was explained that our contract states that we can offer private music lessons as there is no other way that the student can improve without having lessons outside of class. It appears that we are paying several contracts for PC work and yet there is talk about IT personnel being eliminated. The contracts should be eliminated rather than getting rid of our current employees. We need to hold management accountable for the initiation of these agreements. A lot of the contracts are paid through grant funding. HR will do an analysis for next week. There should be a cap on how much the school spends on stipends from the general fund. Need to promote a fiscal responsible culture. There are at least 3 levels of approval on these stipends. Actual salaries include the stipends and these are not budgeted for in our salaries. Will have to ask Wade what the actual salary dollars are for last year. Maybe re-write a job description for faculty….there are no job descriptions for faculty. Maybe job descriptions should be written. Many of these contracts are a one-time hit. Some are part of their jobs. We definitely need to create a policy about stipends/agreements and all were in favor. The entire contract goes to the Board of Trustees on the monthly Board Agenda.
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE 1. Analysis of Stipends/Agreements HR Next meeting 2. Do actual salaries include stipends? Wade/Bob Next meeting
4. TOPIC #4 HEALTH & WELFARE/RETIRE PRESENTER: RUBEN RAMIREZ/BOB MENT BLIZINSKI BENEFITS/STEP FREEZE DISCUSSION Update on Health & Welfare and Step Freeze Savings & 5% reduction to employees and did a headcount of employees. Faculty includes temporary full time, counselors, and librarians. Ancillary benefits cost $71,000 and are as follows: UNUM (only 15 employees buy up in the plan); the Employee Assistance Program; Life Insurance and our Dental Plan. This committee could make a recommendation to the Health & Welfare Committee about ancillary products. The challenge is that everyone has to have it or it will be dropped or if a certain percentage is not participating, it would be dropped. Maybe the total of the ancillary could be cut. Need to be aware of broader implications such as making a benefit plan so lean that we can’t keep current employees or obtaining new employees. Need to analyze and possibly look at other benefit packages at other colleges. Our benefit plan is very rich and note that every one of these items is negotiable. There are different ways to review our benefits. We are looking at a number or different scenarios? Different scenarios….will each bargaining group decide? Yes, that could be done. Our committee should recommend a dollar amount. Need to get to list of items. What’s feasible and what’s not. Step freeze by Classified employees were given up for a year and always will be behind. These are cuts that are being taken out of pockets. The Health & Welfare cut should be a priority before salary cuts as it reflects in our retirement dollars. If salaries are going to keep getting cut, one might want to retire now. Retirement benefits: Make a recommendation that those ready to retire, keep current benefits; any new ones, could change. Retirees are on a tiered rate. Tiered rate for employee only – Wade can get costs and we could show at next meeting. Another reason for Health & Welfare reduction with a lot more to look at.
A listing of recommendations for reduction in costs was reviewed and were marked red = not recommended; yellow = possible recommendation; green = a recommendation. This list will be reviewed again at our next meeting. (see attached)
CONCLUSIONS
ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE 1. Tiered rates for health benefits for employee only. Bob/Wade Next meeting 2. Recommendations for reductions. All
Adjourned at: 10:35 a.m. Next Meeting: 11/17/11 @ 9:00 a.m. in the President’s Board Room