MINUTES
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE
December 17, 2009
Members Present
Debra Bemben
Don Clothier
Debbie Copp
Alisa Dougless
Brenda Freese - Chair
Suzanne Gilmore
Frank Lawler
Darryl McCullough – Vice Chair
Scott Moses – New Member Effective 1/2010
Sue-Anna Miller
Will Wayne
Justin Wert
Members Absent
Don Harrison
Joann Dean
Don Harrison
Chad Johnson
Betty Kupperschmidt
Simone Pulat
Ex Officio Members
Barbara Abercrombie - Absent
Julius Hilburn
Nick Kelly
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:30 pm.
I.
Approval of Minutes

The November 2009 minutes were approved with no changes.
Julius informed the group that Debra Bemben will be leaving the EBC and will be
replaced by Scott Moses, Associate Professor, Industrial Engineering.
II. Defined Contribution Plan

Julius reminded the group of the memo President Boren sent to Deans,
Directors, and Executive Offices on the Norman campus speaking about the
state of the budget. Human Resources has been asked to reduce benefits
costs in 2010-2011.

o Defined Contribution Plans cost approximately $60 million annually,
with $47M going into the 15%, 8%, and 9% plans. The remainder is
tied to the PPP.
An overview of current DC plans was given as follows:
Plan
OTRS prior to 1995
OTRS after 1995
9% ORP
9% Hourly



OU Contribution
15% of salary over $9,000
8% of salary over $9,000
9% of full salary
9% of full salary
Julius presented a variety of scenarios for the committee to evaluate. Some
options discussed were:
o Percentage point reductions to each plan which would impact each
plan differently.
o Flat percentage reductions to each plan with no match which would
impact each plan equally
o The above plans with a varying percentage match available.
Julius explained the challenges faced by each campus as they relate to budget
reductions.
There have been suggestions for the following to be evaluated:
o Modify each plan independently
o Impact new employees more than current employees
Comment: A member of the committee suggested that matching plans would have a
negative effect on lower paid employees because they may not be able to afford a match.
Additionally there is a question about how the reduction and a match could affect
recruiting for very low paid positions, especially custodial staff.
Question: The question was posed as to whether or not it would be possible to decrease
costs by increasing the vesting period.
Response: Nick Kelly told the group that an increased vesting period has been evaluated
and results in minimal savings. Instituting a longer vesting period could also be a
recruiting issue.
Question: A committee member asked whether or not numbers have been reviewed to
evaluate whether those in the 15% group have caught up with the 8% group.
Response: Nick indicated to the group that the 15% group as a whole has caught up with
the 8% group, and in fact are better off in terms of retirement income in almost all cases.
Comment: Darryl McCullough told the group he is firmly opposed to the percentage
point reduction across the board. He is in favor of encouraging a matching program.
Will Wayne indicated that he is in agreement with Darryl.
Response: Julius said that with a match it will take a 30% reduction to generate $8M,
assuming 50% of those eligible will participate in the match. Without a match the
reduction would be closer to 20%.
Comment: There was a suggestion that HR evaluate an option in which the lowest paid
25% of employees are excluded from the cuts, and higher paid employees realize a
deeper cut with the possibility of a match.
Comment: One committee member expressed some concern that there is a perception
those in the $30-$60K salary range have been impacted more in the last 18-24 months by
changes than other groups.
Question: Is there a timeline?
Response: Julius indicated that no timeline has been determined.
Comment: Julius requested comments from the EBC members regarding the waiting
period. Several members responded favorably because new employees would be aware
of the waiting period up front. Others thought it might be a good way to limit overall
decreases in DC plans.
III. Master Record Keeper
 A recap of the overall status was given.
 Advantages of a single record keeper:
 Online enrollment
 A combined statement for all investments
 Enhanced education
 Streamlined customer service
 The goal is to have a three tiered investment structure which will look like
the following:
 Target Retirement Date
 Funds are automatically invested based on the participant’s
date of retirement.
 Core Line-up
 10 – 15 investment options from which to choose
 Brokerage Window
 3,000 additional options
 Caters to the more sophisticated investor
 The transition will consist of three phases:
 Education
 Reenrollment
 Mapping
 It is anticipated there will be a recommendation brought to the EBC in early
2010, with the goal of getting a recommendation on the spring 2010 Regents
Agenda.
IV. Updates from the Chief Human Resources Officer



Julius and Nick met with the Retiree Association in early December to
discuss the Retiree Medical Recommendations.
Discussions for 2011 health benefits have begun with BCBS.
It is anticipated that BCBS will meet with the EBC in early 2010.
The next EBC meeting will be Thursday, January 21, 2010.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.