DATE: February 11, 2005 TO: Dr. Antoinette Iadarola, President FROM: Faculty Senate RE: Reduction of Salary and Benefits At our November, 2004 meeting, the Faculty Senate invited Ms. Lisa Shimada (Director, Human Resources) to present and explain the College's proposed change in benefits. At this meeting, Ms. Shimada informed the faculty that beginning with the March 1, 2005 pay period the College would reduce the benefits of a significant portion of faculty and staff. While we have been aware of these changes months ago, we have never received a formal statement, explanation or clear rationale for why these were necessary. Our representatives on the Benefits Committee have repeatedly reported back to the Senate that their concerns were not directly addressed and that decisions were made in the absence of any real sense of collegiality. It is with these concerns that the following specific points are made: * Clear accounting statements have yet to be given to each faculty member so that they can determine how compensation amounts have been reduced. * The extent to which compensation amounts are reduced differentially based on employee marital status is also confusing. If, in fact, there is such a differential, we believe it would be fitting and appropriate (in the spirit of collegiality) to have received a rationale for why this was done. * We recognize that the benefits year and the faculty contract year are different. However, it is not clear why the flex dollars are being terminated on March 1, 2005, instead of the end of the contract year. One may argue that this is akin to breach of contract. Moreover, the Senate believes that the decision on the part of the College's administration to drastically cut benefits will result in significant financial losses to faculty and staff. Among the consequences of this change is the reduction in ability to recruit and retain the best qualified academics and the dispensation of the college's benefit dollars in a fair and equitable manner. Specifically, we are concerned about: * The loss of qualified faculty and staff. Since Ms. Shimada's presentation to the Senate in November, the College has lost two highly qualified faculty members. Informal discussions with both of these faculty members indicated that the College's compensation and benefits package was a key factor in the decision to leave the college. * Loss of morale among the faculty who remain. The banter in the hallways is focused on the fact that employees are not valued, they are treated as "expense" rather than "valuable resources", and that the College's financial resources are being drained from personnel and put into bricks and mortar. * Difficulty recruiting and retaining faculty. Our compensation reduction will make us less competitive as we attempt to build a quality faculty. * Individuals who have served the College for many years may receive far fewer benefits dollars than faculty hired this year. In fact, as a whole, older faculty without young children will lose more compensation than younger faculty with family coverage. * Single faculty, with and without children, and faculty solely responsible for all household income, will receive fewer benefits dollars than those with a fully employed spouse. * Flex dollars provided for equity in benefit dollars. In fact, it was the College's administration that argued for the equity of equal benefits when they moved to the flex benefits plan from family coverage for all who needed it. The new system will move back to what the administration saw as an inequitable system. We ask that the College cancel this proposed change in benefits and maintain the existing flex benefits - equal compensation formula for all employees regardless of marital status- until the end of this contract year. The College-wide benefits committee should work on a formula for implementing a movement toward a fair and equitable compensation package for all. As employees take up more health costs, national benchmarks have emerged which consider a fair model as one in which employers pick up 75% of family coverage with employees gradually becoming responsible for 25%. The Senate sees this as a fairer standard to be worked toward over the course of the next year than the draconian change proposed by the administration. In closing, while the Senate understands that increases in healthcare costs are a national concern and that other colleges and organizations are struggling with the financial burdens imposed by rising health costs, we see these actions as reducing the long term competitiveness of the College, and of unduly inflicting significant hardships on many faculty and unfairly penalizing some of the most vulnerable at the College. We urge the Administration to answer and address the above issues and concerns as soon as possible. We kindly invite you or an appropriate representative to attend the next Faculty Senate meeting and address these issues and concerns. As always, we look forward to working with the Administration in developing a salary and benefit system that is fair and equitable to all. Sincerely, Dr. Rocco Paolucci, Faculty Senate Chair Dr. Brian Metz, Salary & Benefits Committee Chair Cc: Dr. Jonnie Guerra, VP of Academic Affairs