Tulane Staff Advisory Council Minutes
October 22, 2015
ATTENDEES
ATTENDEES
OFFICERS
DOWNTOWN CAMPUS
Ferbos, Will Chair
Present
Barrera, Denise
Ely, Hunter, Vice-chair
Present
Blue, Jeff
Butler, Aleshia, Elections
Coordinator
Present
Carr, Rose
Beck, Trina, Secretary
Present
Catlin, Kristy
Present
Phone
Daigle, Bryan
NORTHSHORE
MacLean, Avery
Phone
Pham, Brooke
Huber, Jennifer
Excused
Langlois, Liz
Present
Mitchell, Olivia
Present
Montegut, Renetta
WFMO REPRESENTATIVE
Christina Wallace
Present
UPTOWN CAMPUS
Morel, Mel’isa
Present
Pick, Amy
Present
Rabito, Margaret
Present
Present
Anderson, Jerome
Present
Sliwinski, Roblynn
Beezley, Joshua
Phone
Young, Griselda
Bush, Nicole
Present
Charles, Evane
DOWNTOWN PROXIES
Deeves, Tim
Present
Desko, Tara
Ghattas, Joseph
Present
Duckworth, Douglas
Present
Feigenbaum, Matthew
Present
Leonard, Angelica
Loshbaugh, Alysia
Present
Fuentes, Natalia
Marsh, Leslie
Phone
LaSalle, Lucia
Morton, Robert
Present
Maese, Adam
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 1 of 8
Romig, Brad
Phone
May, Matthew
Rouege, Jackie
Present
Pierce, Amy
Smith, Lawrence
Phone
Schmidt, Norine
Weaver, Judith
Present
Snipes, Natasha
Wilde Wilson, Elizabeth
Present
Wilson-Ripoll, Marilyn
Present
Wolford, Laura
Phone
Wyatt, Penny
Phone
UPTOWN PROXIES
NORTHSHORE PROXIES
Broussard, Julia
Lower, Shelley
Brusseau, Allyson
Present
Calogero, Sherrie
Present
Cheramie, Chris
Present
Present
Simmons, Elizabeth
Halperin, Allyson
Keck, Jeanny
Lossi, Suzanne
Martin, AnneMarie
Mouton, Jean
Nazar, Elizabeth
Obrofta, Sharon
Robinson, LaShanda
Present
Paciera, JC
Withers, Sarah
Zazulak, Sheila
Present
All Officers are serving the Staff Advisory Council term 2015 – 2016
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 2 of 8
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 2:00 PM.
The Chair noted that it had come to light that a proxy had recorded the recent closed meeting with Anne
Banos regarding the voluntary separation program, and had subsequently uploaded it and shared it with
her entire department. In light of this, the chair explained that in order to protect the privacy of
committee members and invited guests, recording of meetings is not allowed.
Upon being asked whether the proxy is still a proxy, the chair explained that after meeting with the
proxy and determining that the intent was not malicious, he and the other SAC officers decided to
suspend the proxy for the next few meetings, after which she is free to return. Vice chair Hunter Ely
explained that the goal is to keep the SAC meetings a safe space for members and invited guests, and to
protect our ability to engage in productive conversations with the administration.
I.
Review and Approval of the Minutes
The September 2015 minutes were unanimously approved with no changes.
II.
Guest Speakers: None
III.
WFMO Representative Report
The chair noted that he had received a question regarding whether there are any updates to the
proposed FLSA changes. Christina Wallace responded that there are no updates yet. WFMO is
working to be prepared for the changes whenever they do go into effect, but we still don’t know
exactly what the changes entail.
Christina noted that there is a full plan in place to deal with this but we probably won’t hear
anything about it until we get back from winter break. They are hoping it will be more like the
end of next year.
Vice chair Hunter Ely asked whether/when we will we have an idea of what the schedule will
look like for implementing the changes. He noted that the last time a big chunk of people had
their exempt status change, there was very little notice.
In response to a committee member who was unfamiliar with the proposed changes, Christina
explained the proposed changes to the FLSA which would raise the exempt threshold to an
estimated $50,000 per year (from the current $23,660). She explained that the idea behind it is
good, because it makes more people eligible for overtime pay, but causes major issues for us,
since our budgets are not typically structured to allow for overtime pay. Under the new law,
about 600 people at Tulane who are currently exempt would become non-exempt/eligible for
overtime. Everyone expects it will go through very quickly when it happens, but there were
800,000 comments made during the official comment period that the Department of Labor has
to go through before releasing the final rule. WFMO had to start planning for something to
happen based on what we knew at the time the proposed changes were originally released; the
April 1, 2016 implementation date on WFMO’s website was only an estimate and is likely to
change. The $50K threshold may also change. Christina assures us that there will be more
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 3 of 8
communication and preparation from WFMO than there was the last time there was a status
change for a large group of employees.
Christina also noted that another possible change is that exempt status is currently based both
on salary and job duties, but the proposed change is only based on salary- but again this could
change. All we can do is continue to wait and see at this point.
IV.
Report of the Chair
A. Voluntary Separation Program
Qualifications for the program were released yesterday and are available on the WFMO website
at http://tulane.edu/wfmo/vsp/index.cfm.
o 55+ on or before 1/1/16
o 10+ years of continuous full-time service as of 1/1/16
o Payout= 90% of salary as of 1/1/16
o Only staff, not faculty/admin/librarians
The university expects that this program will result in $3 million in cost savings. The chair noted
that if you qualify for the voluntary separation, this does NOT mean that you will be laid off if
you don’t take it IF involuntary layoffs happen. The Voluntary Separation program does NOT
consider your position, only the age and service criteria. We will likely lose some good
employees who will need to be replaced.
IF involuntary layoffs happen, SOME people who declined voluntary separation MAY be laid off,
but it will be based on their position, not their age/service- there are two completely different
sets of criteria for the two situations. If layoffs are done based on position, it will be determined
by whether staff are considered critical, but it is not yet known who will be responsible for
deciding who is critical.
A question was asked regarding whether the Dean/Director/Department Head would be
responsible for getting approval from WFMO to fill the position if someone takes voluntary
separation. Christina noted that that’s how it works now, and the department head will
definitely need to be involved. Replacement positions would be hired in at 80% of midpoint, per
Anne Banos.
Beth Nazar asked whether there will be a hard hiring freeze. The chair said his understanding is
yes, but the details are unclear.
Employees taking the voluntary separation will have a 1/29/16 departure date, but the
department head can delay the departure up to 1 year. The employees that remain after
1/29/16 will divide up job duties for those who took the voluntary separation until 7/1/16. After
7/1/16, departments can petition to fill positions.
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 4 of 8
A committee member asked: if someone takes voluntary separation but wants to come back,
can they reapply? Yes, you may reapply, but if you return within 2 years of departure date, you
have to pay back a portion of payout (see WFMO website for details).
If you’re subject to an involuntary layoff, do we get a payout? Nope. Keep in mind few details of
involuntary layoffs are settled, because they are counting on the voluntary separation program
to work out.
Hunter asked whether we will have more notice if similar actions are taken in the future. Alysia
Loshbaugh noted that she was on the Huron committee, but was not part of this conversation.
Nothing dealing with personnel ever came to the committee; information was held very tightly
by the upper administration. Christina concurred, noting that WFMO was also kept out of the
loop.
Buyout programs have happened before- one in 1995 impacting both faculty and staff, one in
2001 impacting only staff, and one in 2003 impacting only faculty. In the special SAC meeting
last week, Anne mentioned some things are on the table re: cost cutting measures focused on
faculty/administrative positions.
If you take voluntary separation, you can still receive the tuition waiver for yourself and
dependents through 2031.
Marilyn Wilson noted that as a SAC representative, if we know someone who’s interested in
taking this package, we need to remind them that they will be taxed at a higher rate due to
receiving the payout, and encourage them to take advantage of the financial advising WFMO is
offering.
The consensus among committee members was that the package is actually pretty generous,
and the fact that it happens in January puts people in a much better position tax-wise than if it
happened later in the year. People who delay a year will still get the full payout at the end of the
delay; they should take the full year to get the payout in January.
Robert Morton noted that we will probably have a sense of whether this is going to happen well
before the predicted decision date of March, so we should be thinking ahead and prepare a
counter proposal to suggest alternative cost cutting measures to help us avert involuntary
layoffs. The chair replied that Marilyn Wilson has already agreed to help us begin an ad hoc
committee to this end. Robert will join this committee, and everyone else who is interested in
joining or submitting ideas is encouraged to email Marilyn at mwilso1@tulane.edu.
As head of a department, Alysia received an email from WFMO to let her know that there were
people in her area that are eligible, but she didn’t get a list, and WFMO hasn’t told her when
she’ll get this list. This is an issue. WFMO rep Christina Wallace confirmed that they weren’t
planning to send this list to all department heads. SAC representatives agreed that it would be
very helpful for departments to obtain a list for contingency planning purposes.
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 5 of 8
One SAC member said two people in her office called WFMO before they were notified to see if
they were on the list. One was and was thrilled; the other was not and asked if she could be put
on the list. This brings up another issue; what if people who just missed the cut are interested?
This might be a good intermediary step before involuntary layoffs. One person says she knows
someone in her office who missed the cutoff by a month and is really upset.
The chair noted that a lot of research has been done on this particular group, so if we open up
the program it will cause delays as they research the potential cost savings. About 500
employees are currently eligible for the program.
A rep asked whether we should we suggest a way for people who just missed the cutoff to
apply, rather than having a second round that includes people who were included the first time
around but didn’t want it? The chair replied that we’ll consider these ideas in the ad hoc
committee. Another rep suggested that we need to focus more on how to save money- why
can’t we evaluate the fact that, as Anne Banos mentioned, we may not be understaffed, but we
may be unequally distributed? The chair replied that redistribution won’t save money, and if
they select people to move around, that’s another involuntary situation.
The general consensus among SAC representatives was that there are plenty of people who are
enthusiastic about the voluntary separation program, but that it also puts some people in a
tough spot. Not everyone who’s eligible wants to leave, but they might feel pressured to in case
they end up being laid off. One rep noted that she overheard a staff member commenting, “I
don’t feel like I really have a choice.”
Robert asked whether the quoted figure of $3 million in savings includes only salary, or the
whole package. The response was that the figure only includes salary. Mel’isa Morel said we
should keep in mind that employees who are 55+ cost more to insure, so this is another
dimension to the cost savings measure. The university will also save on retirement
contributions, because there’s a delay before they pay into retirement for new employees if the
positions are replaced.
Hunter reiterated that if we had more knowledge in advance, we could help the administration,
and that they’re not doing themselves any favors by not working with us. It would help them
with buy-in if they at least asked our opinions, even if they don’t do anything with it.
Beth asked whether SAC can communicate to all staff regarding these issues, just to provide
information. She noted that people feel alone because they’re siloed, and that some staff think
SAC has power that we don’t actually have, but we can at least provide what information we
have. The chair replied that he’s not sure it’s appropriate for SAC to send out information
second-hand, and that there are people who are designated to answer these questions, so it’s
dangerous for us to wade in here. However, we can at least send an email directing people to
the right resources. If SAC members are comfortable emailing the people in their areas with
information from these meetings, that’s fine.
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 6 of 8
Trina noted that it might be preferable to do this, because it’s more personal than just a general
email from SAC, which might get lumped in with all the other mass emails from WFMO and the
administration.
B. Ad Hoc Constitution Committee
The chair stated that the next steps will be to work with Marilyn and Robert on this committee
to figure out ways to save Tulane money to avert involuntary layoffs. Robert noted that years
ago, when they began winter recess, it was allegedly due to cost savings, and he wondered
whether we could access this information. He suggested that we might propose a short summer
break for the university, maybe give up a few vacation days, and reap some savings. The ad hoc
committee will consider this and other ideas.
V.
Officer Reports
A. University Senate –
Chair Will Ferbos attended the Senate meeting on 10/5. Rick Matasar was announced as the
new VP for Strategic Initiatives and Institutional Effectiveness. Tania Tetlow, the new Chief of
Staff, will come to our next SAC meeting.
President Fitts mentioned the task forces again, and noted that reports are on the website:
http://tulane.edu/undergradexperience/index.cfm
http://tulane.edu/academic-collaborations/index.cfm
Prof. Long discussed comments from budget review committee re: targets for savings (see
website at http://tulane.edu/huron/updates.cfm). The new budget model will shadow the
existing budget- they will be run side by side. Alysia noted that there will be more committees
and allegedly more transparency, including in the athletics budget. Additional updates
included:
•
Overtime will only be paid over 40 hrs after 7/1/16
•
Capital campaign is now in silent phase
•
Master plan will be completed in January
•
3% increase in tuition, 2% increase in salary merit pool
•
Operating deficit of $2mil worked into budget
Prof. Davies read proposed changes to Senate constitution which would reduce the number of
faculty and voting administrators, increase the number of staff and students, and add the
category of librarian. They are also considering abolishing the at-large position, which would
further decrease the number of voting faculty.
B. Board of Administrators –
Vice Chair Hunter Ely reported that at the recent board meeting, Pres. Fitts talked about
the same stuff we keep hearing about: the deficit, a cross-disciplinary focus, and redoing
the budget. Hunter was surprised to hear that the endowment is doing great (he did not
have actual numbers, but can provide upon request), and that this was used to offset the
deficit.
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 7 of 8
VI.
University Senate Committee Reports
A. Benefits – no meeting
B. Budget Review – no meeting
C. Information Technology – no meeting
D. Equal Opportunity – no meeting
E. Physical Facilities – no meeting
F. Social Issues – no meeting
VII.
SAC Sub-Committees
A. Election – no meeting
B. Electronic Technologies and Information (ET&I) – no meeting
C. Staff Appreciation – no meeting
D. Staff Issues – The chair noted that this committee met a couple weeks ago. With
everything that’s going on, we want to find ways to de-stress at work. A few ideas that
were brought up include “buddy breaks” (shelter dogs to play with on breaks), which is
being planned for the uptown/downtown campuses, and an intramural sports league i.e.
kickball. Other ideas are welcome.
E. Health and Wellness – no meeting
F. Community Service – no meeting
VIII.
Old Business and/or New Business
A. Populating Committees – Senate Equal Opportunity Committee
The chair needs to appoint 2 non-exempt and 2 exempt staff members to the Senate
Equal Opportunity Committee. Exempt staff members Olivia Mitchell and Roblynn
Swilinski volunteered. The chair is still in need of 2 non-exempt staff members.
B. Old/New Business
There was an additional question regarding voluntary separation: will the payout be based
on the salary after the January 2016 raise? Yes, it will. Everyone is encouraged to review
program details at http://tulane.edu/wfmo/vsp/index.cfm.
Vice chair Hunter Ely stated that SAC is not well known among the staff at large, and we
should try to change this. He suggested we should meet with the recently revived Black
Faculty & Staff Association and the LGBTIQ Faculty and Staff association to try to identify
common goals and increase awareness and impact on campus. He also noted that there
are existing funds earmarked for staff, and that we should look at these to see how much
is there and whether it could be used for something.
IX.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Trina Beck
Secretary
SAC minutes October 2015
Page 8 of 8