President Tom Gerety opened the discussion by framing the need for the re-examination of benefits with statistics regarding increased cost of health care benefits nationwide. Speaking on the current faculty benefits package in this context, Gerety contended that "a number of items that [seemed modest] were, in fact, looming [because of the 15-20 percent increase in the cost of health-care]." Currently, the College has over a $20 million long term liability of retiree benefit.
Shea prefaced his question-and-answer period by stating that "[he had] very little to add to what was presented last time," and briefly presented some pie charts of the operating budget to clarify the economic reasons behind the proposed changes.
Shea also said that the committee on health care benefits would meet and announce its specific recommendations as early as last week.
Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Thought Austin Sarat questioned Shea as to when the administration had started the process of restructuring of employee benefits.
Sarat asked Shea if the College's budget for next year had been approved. "All of the basic parameters have [been approved]" said Shea.
Sarat inquired if the aforementioned budget anticipated changes to benefits this year, and Shea affirmed that it does.
"Last year, we couldn't make changes [to the benefits policy]," said Shea. "The [issue] was scheduled to be reviewed this year."
Sarat expressed concern with Shea's responses. "It sort of has felt that the train has left the station on this matter," said Sarat, indicating that the discussion regarding changes to benefits seemed less meaningful in light of the fact that next year's operating budget had apparently already been constructed with changes in mind.
Shea assured Sarat that the Board would indeed listen to faculty input on the matter.
Gerety affirmed that "The Board [of Trustees] is right to have a fiduciary concern ... the Board has a tremendous commitment to faculty salaries."
Gerety expressed his conflicting views on the subject. "I'm going into this really being torn ... One method of restraining health care moderately is to stress contribution across employee base." He concluded by saying that "the Board approaches this with real generosity in spirit and realism ... a sense that we've got to be careful here."
Gerety went on to speak about how the Board planned to look at "competitive" schools in reaching its decision. The faculty asked many questions-many of which had also been raised at the last faculty meeting-about how exactly and how fairly the Board planned to look at "competitive" plans, which refer to the plans that other, similarly structured schools offer their employees. "It's going to be a very vexed, difficult issue," said Gerety.
Despite reassurances from both Gerety and Shea, the faculty still expressed concern at the prospect of the restructuring and whether or not the Board was listening to their opinions on the issue.
Professor of Economics Dan Barbezat pleaded for careful consideration to be given by the Board. "We need to think about this for a moment ... Slow down ... Before we do something. Please ... Advise the Board and suggest that we slow down before any set policy is accepted."
Professor of French and European Studies Ronald Rosbottom also expressed his concerns about how and in what capacity the faculty voices were being passed on to the Board.
Rosbottom commented that his impression of the minutes from the last faculty meeting was that the faculty's discussion of the matter was seriously marginalized, whereas most of the minutes were devoted to Peter Shea's presentation. "I think it's time we met with the Board ... We come out seeming like whiny little children ... The Board doesn't hear us, and we want to speak to them directly."
Gerety spoke to the authority and fairness of the Board. "The Board has tremendous authority, ... Ultimately we are subject to the Board," he said.
Gerety asked the faculty to consider that the Board rarely imposes on curriculum, but when it comes to budget, there is a sense that the "fundamental compact is a consultative compact."
The faculty then turned its attention to a motion put forth by the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP) to list both Latin honors and English honors in the commencement program. The motion was seconded and approved by a resounding voice vote with all faculty in favor and none opposed.
The third item of note on the agenda was the approval of 69 new proposed courses for the upcoming academic year.
Professor of English and CEP member Dale Peterson presented the new courses for consideration. The CEP reviews course proposals before sending them to the Committee of Six. The faculty has the final vote on the proposals.
At the faculty meeting, the 69 courses put up for approval did not meet any opposition, with all faculty being in favor of the proposed courses entering the curriculum. There was some discussion between Professor of Economics Walter Nicholson and Professor of Fine Arts Nicola Courtwright, concerning enrollment limits on courses.
New courses approved include English 92: Photography and the Photographic, Fine Arts 58: The Modern Icon: "A New Icon for a New Era," Spanish 52: Drugs in Latin America and Philosophy 66: Seminar: Threats to Morality.
Nicholson asked the CEP to examine limited enrollment, saying that he was concerned about the small cap on some of the proposed courses. Courtwright responded to those concerns within the framework of the fine arts department. She said that one of the benefits to the smaller classes is a more tutorial-style learning environment, which is essential to the studio component of the fine arts program.
Despite the discussion, the faculty did not make any changes or raise any objections to the proposed new courses.