Chancellor Nancy Cantor sent an e-mail to Syracuse University faculty and staff members Friday proposing changes to employee benefits in the areas of retirement, education and health care.

Faculty and staff will have the opportunity to provide input on the proposals Tuesday and on Feb. 1 at open forums held in the Hergenhan Auditorium and Hendricks Chapel, respectively. The University Senate will hold a meeting on March 3 to announce the university’s 2011 budget. The proposals will then be sent to the university’s Board of Trustees for approval on March 11.

The proposal is the result of the semester-long effort of the Working Group on Sustainable Benefits, which comprises Chancellor Nancy Cantor, Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Louis Marcoccia, representatives from USen committees, a graduate student representative, deans of colleges at SU and faculty representatives.

‘People provided comments and thoughts on what worked well given the various values and principles and what we might tweak,’ Spina said. ‘Certainly not every member of the Working Group was equally supportive of the proposal, but I think the Working Group felt comfortable that we had heard and we responded to the issues that they raised.’

The goal of the changes were both to allow employee benefits to sustain themselves and to create a more competitive benefits package compared to other universities, Spina said. He said he feels the Working Group achieved these goals.

‘We made sure that in each instance we were still competitive with our peers – not necessarily the most generous, but certainly among the most generous in each of these benefit areas that we identified,’ Spina said. ‘The idea with sustainability is that we know that benefits are going to continue to become more expensive – I mean, simply looking at health care alone – and we need to put in place a set of benefits that would assure that we are able to maintain the benefits that we do have.’

The current cost of employee benefits is $113 million, according to the proposal. The changes would reduce this by $3 million, in order to enhance sustainability, according to the proposal. The changes would enforce cuts in current benefits, while also providing new benefits.

The university would cut its contribution to the benefits package from 11 to 9 percent of an employee’s earnings in order to sustain employee retirement benefits, according to the proposal.

To ensure that health care benefits can sustain themselves, employee contributions to health care packages would increase from 21.9 percent to 25 percent. However, low-income employees with earnings between $33,000 for single employees and $66,000 for families will only have to contribute 21.9 percent.

Tuition benefits for spouses and same-sex domestic partners would be made sustainable by instituting a 5 percent co-pay for employees and retirees and a 15 percent co-pay for spouses and same-sex domestic partners of employees and retirees.

These changes total $7.1 million in savings, but $4.1 million would then be redirected to enhance employee benefits. Among the enhancements would be a $1,000 offset to a federal tax on same-sex domestic partner benefits and health care coverage for opposite-sex domestic partners.

Thomas Dennison, a political science professor and the representative for the Health Care Advisory Council in the Working Group, said he feels the proposed changes accomplish providing benefits while keeping costs low.

‘There is a reality about what any organization can provide in terms of fringe benefits,’ Dennison said. ‘I think it’s a balancing act, and nothing’s ever perfect, but I think the recommendations are consistent with principles the chancellor outlined.’

Some faculty members said they are unsatisfied with the results of the Working Group and the proposed changes. Jeffrey Stonecash, a political science professor who was on the USen Budget Committee from September 2008 to December 2009, said he does not think the process of coming up with the proposals was thoughtful enough to have created meaningful changes.

While on the Budget Committee, Stonecash often requested data showing the growth rate of benefit costs and data comparing SU’s benefit package with other schools, among other things, Stonecash said. But he said he never received such information.

‘I get the feeling that from the moment (the benefit process) began, there was a decision ‘We’re going to cut.’ That’s all there is to it,’ Stonecash said. ‘And all the rest of it was window dressing to make it look like there really was a process.’

Stonecash said he will attend one of the open forums on the benefit changes, but he said he is not sure how much they will affect the final proposal.

Stonecash also said he does not agree with some of the proposals that emerged from the Working Group. He said he does not think opposite-sex couples who choose not to get married should get the same health care benefits as married couples and same-sex domestic partners.

‘Why are we doing something for people who can legally get married?’ Stonecash said. ‘I don’t understand why we’re spending money for a group of people who, on their own, decide not to get married. The same-sex thing I absolutely understand and support. I don’t understand the others, and I don’t understand why we’re cutting people’s retirement benefits and making them pay more money for health insurance and making them pay more money to send their kids here.’

Other professors said they feel the proposals are a step in the right direction.

Coming into the Working Group, members of the LGBT community felt like they were not getting the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, said Brenda Wrigley, a public relations professor. This is because while they received the same health care benefits, federal law requires a tax on same-sex domestic partner benefits, causing them to pay more for the same benefits heterosexuals receive.

Wrigley said she feels the $1,000 offset to the federal tax the university is offering will help, but it may not be enough.

‘I think they’re finally addressing the issue,’ Wrigley said. ‘I just hope and pray that finally we’re going to have some equity here. I’m really sick and tired of paying extra money, so if this will fix that, I think it’s great.’

rhkheel@syr.edu

Published on January 25, 2010 at 12:00 pm