Dear Faculty:

Here are the minutes of the benefits forum held in April. We were going to publish in our newsletter but it is already too full.

April Benefits Forum Held at Mission College with ACE Benefit Consultant Present:

Pat Andrews introduced Joe Van Orsdale, who has been hired on a one-year contract to provide data on costs, plans, oomparisons, and to offer strategies for the future.

Joe introduced himself to the group and explained that he had attended the February Benefits meeting and understands the process. He stated that he understands where he believes our management and other districts are going - they are attempting to shift the cost, they want employer caps on employee benefits with the employee paying the difference.

Q: Are you aware of the concession we made about two-years ago on a prescription card?

Pat said that we have asked Joe to determine the actual savings as a result of the prescription card. Joe stated: that we want to list concessions and agreements so that the negotiators will have more tools to work with - they can discuss where we are in relationship to other districts, they can setup strategies to maintain benefits and cost. All of this has to be put into a package. We want to construct a financial plan and reference data so that as the costs for the health plans change we will be able to respond to the district. He hears that we have made concessions and we want to maintain our benefits.

Q: It sounds like you are working in context of the faculty giving back more. We keep hearing words, such as: what you have to give back, etc. At the faculty meetings that ACE attended at the beginning of the semester you heard from the faculty that we don't want any more give backs. Is it ACE's position that we will have no more give backs - salary or benefits?

Pat stated that this was ACE's position. We have hired this person to help us obtain data to show the district that they have no justification to ask for anything further.. Randy agreed with this statement. She commented: we were told by the district that if we took the prescription card then all of our problems would be over but this is NOT the case.

Q. Have the current retirees had benefit cuts?

Yes, they now have the prescription card and co-payments. This is currently under litigation.

Comment: for the retirees this is a secondary plan if they have Medicare. Medicare is used first and then the district health plan. The district requires you to use Medicare if you are eligible. This also saves the district money.

Q: As a new employee seeing no raises and increases in benefit costs for the employee how do we attract and keep people if we have huge debts to retirees?

Randy said that this was the district's burden. The unions said to put money aside; they said to put some of the COLA aside for the retiree benefits. This is ongoing money and at the time it would have cost $900,000 a year. The district has not done this. The retirees gave up salary to get these benefits. The bond issue that just passed should free up some land corporation money. Could this be dedicated to pay for these benefits? If we can do this then it will free up some money from Fund 100.

Comment: We are seeing raises at other institutions, e.g. at DeAnza, and they have the same benefit problems we have. San Mateo has a surplus. But here we have double taxation. In 2003 the district was robbing the retirees benefits to pay off other things.

Q: Could you please summarize the health benefit tiers?

Pre-union: the benefits were lifetime and they were free

1986-1994: these people have retirement benefits but there is disagreement as to whether these are the benefits when you vested or the benefits in place when you retire

1994 forward: have no retirement benefits, they get $5500 one time money to take care of their benefits.

Randy pointed out that we need a bridge to help the people hired since 1994 until they have eligibility for Medicare. Mediation opened this and the district promised to negotiate in the Fall but now the district won't talk about this. They don't want to do it.

Q: Could we compare data as the percent of total budget or total FTE rather then just total dollar increase? Joe said he would go into each in-house account. He asked: what do you want to see? Response: benefits in total budget as WSCH/FTE as percent of total budget; where we stand in relationship to other California or Bay Area colleges.

Q: Can we use the leverage of 109 colleges to get a better rate?

Joe said that there were different approaches that could be used - trusts, JPAs, etc. - if we can get the District there. More coalitions are forming. Pat pointed out that we were very close to getting this but when we said that faculty had to be on the group board then our Board backed out. Joe pointed out that you have to pick benefits that can be managed together. He also pointed out that working with a big group you can negotiate better with the plans but it is difficult to manage.

Q: Is the district getting the rebate from the prescription cards?

Pat said this is information that Joe will find out.

Q: The trust administrators (125 flex spending) - the pre tax money for medical - if you don't submit claims does the money go back into the revenue stream? What happens to this money? This could be a large amount. If you don't use this money then you lose it.

Joe said that this money goes back to whoever is responsible for the plan. In this case it would go back to the District.

Q: Will you present data and give us a recommendation?

Joe said that he would.

Meeting ended at 5:20pm

Pat Andrews, President