MINUTES
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE
March 11, 2010
Members Present
Don Clothier
Debbie Copp
Alisa Dougless
Brenda Freese - Chair
Suzanne Gilmore
Chad Johnson
Frank Lawler
Darryl McCullough – Vice Chair
Scott Moses
Sue-Anna Miller
Jannie Porter
Will Wayne
Justin Wert
Members Absent
Barbara Abercrombie
Don Harrison
Simone Pulat
Other Attendees
Ladonna Sullivan
Theta Dempsey
Ex Officio Members
Julius Hilburn
Nick Kelly
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:30 pm.
I.
Approval of Minutes

The February 2010 minutes were approved with no changes.
II. Defined Contribution Plan


As decided in the February meeting HR prepared additional scenarios for the
Committee’s review and consideration. Julius began with a discussion about the
need to reduce benefits cost, and some background on why HR began modeling
defined contribution scenarios, rather than other programs, to absorb the impact of
potential reductions to benefit spending.
Scenarios were presented which outlined the potential cost savings using the
following programs:




Voluntary reductions in FTE/Unpaid Leaves
Phased Retirement
Early Retirement or Termination Incentives
Benefit Reductions


Furloughs
Voluntary Leaves



Reduction in FTE
Voluntary furlough
Unpaid leave of absence
Question: What happens to benefits if someone were to take a voluntary leave of
absence?
Response: Julius told the committee that a voluntary plan could be designed which would
allow benefits to continue. He also stated that based on research of other universities
offering voluntary leaves, they are generally offered in conjunction with other programs.

Phased Retirement


Current program is phased over 10 years. A new program would
be established to reduce FTE over 1 to 3 years.
Could have OTRS impact. Retirement benefit would not be
reduced, but would not increase either.
Comment: Several committee members voiced the opinion that a phased retirement
program, if offered, should include staff as well as faculty.

Retirement Incentives


OU would determine what employees and/or employees are
eligible
Savings would only be realized if departments agreed to a
permanent reduction and vacated positions are not filled, or if
hiring of replacements is aggressively managed
Comment: Several committee members expressed concern that a retirement incentive
program may be too risky.

Furloughs




Savings will be immediate
Employees’ take home pay will be affected
It would take 7 to 8 furlough days per employee to achieve the
same level of savings as the DC reductions
The number of furlough days could increase or decrease depending
on whether they are administered through a tier system, and if
certain employee classes (i.e., grant funded, clinical, etc.) are
excluded
Question: One committee member asked what would happen to health insurance costs,
due to potential shifts in tiers for employees, in the event of a furlough.
Response: Julius indicated that employees on the line between two tiers would not be
moved to the lower tier because of a furlough, so, there would not be an increase in
university contributions.
Question: A committee member inquired as to whether or not temporary workers would
be needed to replace critical functions during the furlough period.
Response: Julius told the group that all issues such as this would need to be addressed
prior to implementing the program.
Comment: It was the opinion of one committee member that given what is currently
known about the situation and the caveats in the EBC recommendation to President
Boren, the DC reduction appears to be the better option.
Comment: Julius stressed to the committee that it is currently unknown how long any
recommendation to President Boren will be in effect as the full budget impact is still
uncertain.
Comment: There was significant discussion about the apparent faculty preference for
furloughs vs. the staff preference for the DC reduction. One faculty member on the
committee indicated that faculty opinion may shift if there were to be a timeframe, such
as 1 year, stipulated in the recommendation.
Question: A committee member asked if there is any indication from the President’s
office whether the $4M savings directive for the Norman campus will change.
Response: Julius indicated that the budget situation changes monthly and HR will
continue to seek direction from the administration. He also clarified the statement by
informing the group that the severity of the budget constraints may vary between Norman
and HSC.

Defined Contribution Plan Reductions


The EBC has recommended that if DC reductions are necessary, an
across the board approach is best
Employees’ take home pay would not be negatively impacted
Motion: A motion was made by Debbie Copp to amend the memo sent to President Boren
to include a stipulation that the 20% reduction to DC, if necessary, be reevaluated on an
annual basis. Justin Wert moved to second the motion. Prior to all parties voicing a
vote, Don Clothier made another motion to table the motion made by Debbie. Scott
Moses moved to second the tabling motion and the Committee voted to approve.
III. Updates from the Chief Human Resources Officer

IV.
There were no additional updates
Other Business

There was no other business
The next EBC meeting will be Thursday, April 15, 2010.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.