Compensation/Workforce Reduction Think Tank Committee

Minutes

date:10/13/11

time: 9:00 a.m.

location: president’s board room

Attendees / Ruben Ramirez; Jim Matthews; Susan Kitagawa; Lauro Jimenez; Lynda Scott; Misti Santana; Barbara Creson; Mary Lisi; Fergus Currie; Kim Dozier; Michael Warrington; Recorder: Anita Corral.

Agenda topics

1. topic #1 NEW MEMBER

PRESENTER: LAURO JIMENEZ

Discussion
Nancy Hunt from the Foundation has requested to join our committee but could not attend today.

2. Topic #2 –MINUTES APPROVAL

presenter:LAURO JIMENEZ

discussion
The minutes were reviewed and there were a few changes. After the changes were made, a motion was made to approve the revised minutes and it was first moved by Susan Kitagawa and Mary Lisi seconded. No one opposed and minutes were passed.
action items / person responsible / deadline

Corrections to minutes to be made and posted on portal.

/ Anita / ASAP

3. Topic #3 – PRESENTATION OF F/T FACULTY OBLIGATION

presenter: SUSAN KITAGAWA

discussion
Susan Kitagawa did a F/T Faculty Obligation slide show (attached) explaining the obligation.
action items / person responsible / deadline

4. topic #4 BRAINSTORMING

presenter:all

discussion
Brainstorming session on ideas that don’t work & why:

Re the full-time obligation - possibility of identifying non-tenure track and making them tenure track or tenured. Problem: If funding were to go away from program where these faculty were funded, it could cause a reduction in force due to the bumping process. This is also a negotiable item. We would have to look at the impact of the 50% rule. Discussion about bumping rights would have to be considered on the rest of the unit that could be affected. Need to show this as a data point to show others.

With number of adjuncts decreasing, has the overload increased?Ooverloads have increased but are not considered in FTO.

Re: closing campus on Fridays--Title V states that so many primary instructional days/hours have to be provided and so if college is closed won’t be enough hours.

Need to assess risks. Maybe this is something that we could argue about with the Chancellor’s Office and take off two Fridays. Need to push the idea although our funding may not be refunded. Need to look at risk and impact and see if it is worth it.

Looked at graph from Kevin Snyder as to the utility savings if college is closed. The real item that needs to be examined is the Central Plant support during certain weeks as it accounts for over 1/3 of our annual power expense. In March, the central pant support only changes slightly when we are closed weekends whereas in July the difference is more significant. (see attached chart)

Suggestion to close campus in summer but there are too many year-end projects that have to be done by some of the departments; important Unemployment forms that have to be completed and returned; fiscal year projects and same issue in January, i.e. W2’s, workers comp, etc….everything that affects taxes. Can any of the work be done by telecommuting? Probably not. There are also Financial Aid requirements and preparation for Admission & Records. Still have to run the business side of the college. We need to account for these things that are visible to everyone to show that there are behind the scenes business that has to take place. Have to meet a lot of compliance issues. Also, 30 days after each semester, grades have to be provided to Chancellor’s office; degrees have to be conferred.

PSA & Nursing has to have required classes on Fridays; the Arts have classes on Saturday and Sunday.

Possible Workforce reduction would be in classified area and a maximum savings would have to be reducing time from 40 hours to 32 hours. Eight (8) hours over 2 weeks is a 10% cut in salary. This could would also affect retirement benefits.

How about Fridays off just in summer? Maybe the impact on retirement wouldn’t be affected very much. Unemployment is based on contributions by your employer. Could collect unemployment for the time off. Already working 4/40 for at least 12 weeks in summer.

Married/partner faculty who have dual medical insurance are not allowed to opt out. We can’t opt out because SISC requires the District to have every full time employee enrolled in the plan, but we only pay 75% of each of their premiums because they are married. We are contracted 2 more years with SISC. We would lose our experience rating if we left SISC. SISC plan encouraged (if one was employed elsewhere) but the plan didn’t get any participation so it is going to go away.

One member stated that she would prefer the reduction in the amount of money that the District gives us for benefits rather than a cut in salary as it could would affect retirement and with the use of a FLEX spending account, the premium would be pre-tax. Those people earning a smaller salary amount, a $1,000 reduction in benefit allowance is a big part of their pay checkwould affect them disproportionately. Units could mitigate affect by allotting a bigger allowance to those members who earn less. We need to look at the culture of the college paying for health insurance for the employee, spouse or domestic partner and all dependents.

Right now we should look at tier rates for employees in our medical premiums if we get reduction in health benefits. With $15,000 per person there is a lot of flexibility….employees that earn on high end could pay more in insurance. Do we need all of theancillary benefits. Need to see how much they are being used. What about a Cafeteria plan? Our ancillary insurance benefits would be canceled as everyone has to participate if we want to continue to have life insurance, vision, UNUM (long term care) which a lot of people don’t know about. We have only 15 people in the UNUM plan right now. Costs about $80K a year. If district dropped it, maybe those people could continue paying their same premium in order to keep this insurance. Changes would have to go in October 2012. The college is paying composite rates now because it is cheaper. The District could choose to have employee pay more. Each bargaining unit could choose its own plan. Doesn’t that affect our rates? No.

Everybody is on same HMO & same PPO plan and this is negotiated every year. SISC provides our broker a quote of all plans available and ultimately those rates would be the rate for each bargaining unit and Leadership has to go with one of those. Go out to bid each year, but SISC will allow us to make adjustments in plan. Alliant is our broker and handles all plans. Maybe go out to bid for ancillary insurance. If people are on Medicare, they are fully covered by our plan until they retire. SISC doesn’t allow us to opt out of plan.

Outsourcing – lot of laws in Ed Code SB1419 about this topic. You can outsource if can prove a lot of saving to District. The outsourcing can’t displace employees and can’t pay less than someone in the position. If we open a new campus site, at that point, the District could make significant savings on that campus by possibly outsourcing. Don’t have a full time security in Mecca. If somebody retired, can we outsource? Would have to be negotiated with union. If one person is in a single classification, you can eliminate that position.

Not meeting on 10/27/11. When Bob returns, significant material in Ed Code and Title V should be placed in our documents to be presented to CPC and mentioned that certain items involve negotiations.

After we did layoff, we combined 3 positions into 1…worked with union….and saved some money. As people leave, we work with CSEA to have a conscious review and work with supervisor, President’s cabinet, on how we can refill the position in a better way. This is negotiated with union.

Let’s take a look at workforce reduction next time. Since it is part of our title, we should set up guidelines on what we have looked at and why we can’t do certain things as it is a negotiated item. Need to see Ed Code. Tomorrow, Lauro will be presenting the concept of what Nancy Moll had suggested (Recommendations and why they don’t work) and ask other think tank committees to do the same.

conclusions
action items / person responsible / deadline

Lauro to do presentation of ideas that don’t work at CPC on 10/14/11

Adjourned at: 10:30 a.m. No meeting on 10/20/11
Next Meeting: 10/27/11 @ 9:00 a.m. in the President’s Board Room