xt798s4jq80z https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt798s4jq80z/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1995-12-11  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 11, 1995 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, December 11, 1995 1995 1995-12-11 2020 true xt798s4jq80z section xt798s4jq80z U N IVE RSITY
O F KE NTU C KY University Senate Council

Office of the Chair

10 Administration Building
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0032
Office: (606) 257—5871 or (606) 257—5872
FAX: (606) 323-1062

4 December 1995
TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, December 11,
.1995, "t 3:00 PM in room 115 ofthe Nursing Building (CON/HSLC).

1 . Minutes.

Chair’s Announcements

3. I Resolutions

Consideration of and Action on Proposed Position Paper, Coalition of Senate and
Faculty Leadership (COSFL) (circulated under date of 29 November 1995).

Consideration and action on proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section
V - (Repeat Option). (Circulated under date of 30 November 1995).

Proposal to amend the University calendar to designate two mid-term reading
days the first Monday and Tuesday of October (circulated under date of 27
November 1995).

FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: a discussion of recommendations related to
retirement. Issues such as support services, incentives, and phased-in retirement
plans will be addressed. (Circulated under date of 1 December 1995)

New Business

Betty J. Huff

US Agenda:12.11.95


An Equal Opportunity University



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 pm, Monday, December 11, 1995 in
Room 115 ofthe Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Gretchen LaGodna, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron*, Gary Anglin, Patricia Arnold, Benny Ray Bailey, John
Ballantine, Michael Bardo, Teny Birdwhistell, Thomas Blues, Douglas Boyd, Bill Brassine,
Joseph Burch, Allan Butterfield, Johnny Cailleteau, Joan Callahan, Berry Campbell*, Dennis
Carpenter, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Louis Chow, Jordan Cohen*, Scott Coovett, Raymond
Cox, Carla Craycraft, Charles Davis, Virginia Davis-Nordin, Philip DeSimone, Larry Dickson*,
Richard Edwards, Robert Farquhar, Joseph Fink, Donald Frazier, Richard Furst, Hans Gesund, J.
Russell Groves, Lynne Hall, lssam Harik*, S. Zafar Hasan*, Christine Havice, James Holsinger,
Raleigh Jones, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester, Thomas Lillich, C. Oran Little, Jeff Lowe, Jan
McCulloch, M. Pinar Menguc*, A. Lee Meyer, David Mohney, Maurice Morrison, Wolfgang
Natter*, Anthony Newbcrry, Michael Nietzel*, William O'Connor, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Tom
Pratt, Shirley Raines, Karl Raitz, Elaine Reed, Daniel Reedy, Thomas Robinson, John Rogers,
Michael Rohmiller, Scott Safford, Rosetta Sandidage*, David Shipley, Todd Shock, Sheldon
Steiner, William Stober*, David Stockham, Michael Thomlin, Michael Uyhelji, Retia Walker*,
Craig Wallace, Charles Wethington*, Chad Willet, Carolyn Williams*, Eugene Williams, Paul
Willis, Emery Wilson, Mary Witt*, Linda Worley, Arthur Wrobel.

Chairperson Gretchen LaGodna made the following announcements:

The third person to join Tom Blues and Dan Fulks as the newly elected Senate Council
member is Virginia Davis—Nordin from the College of Education.

You are aware of the charge and ongoing activities of the Ad Hoc Graduate Education
Committee chaired by Professor Jim Boling. The Senate Council's representative on the
committee, Jim Applegate, has kept the Senate Council regularly informed of what the committee
is doing. Most of you have provided input to the committee. In addition the Senate Ad Hoc
Committee on the status of Women met with the committee to discuss issues of representation,
distribution, retention, success, and support of women. That committee is continuing its work
and should be completed sometime in the Spring.

The Senate Council between meetings has met with Connie Christian of the University's
Institutional Planning and Budget Office to discuss accountability reporting for the Council on
Higher Education, in particular problems related to faculty/ student contact hours. They are
working on a system that will systematically report contact hours across campus. This goes into a
lot of different areas, one of which is the way in which courses are described and the type of
format used when introducing new courses.

* Absence Explained


 _ 2 -
Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

There is some concern about the level of activity of elected senate members in regard to
faculty involvement and attendance at Senate Meetings. We hoped that we would raise the level
of dialogue by instituting the F ACGO list serve, but to date there are only ten people that have
signed up, which says that there is not much dialogue going on. I bring that to your attention
because I feel that is a valuable method for discussion of ideas about some of the academic issues
coming up. The attendance at Senate Meeting by elected faculty was only 60% at the November
meeting and only 24% of the student senators were present. If we are going to accomplish what

we set out to accomplish we are going to have to turn this around in the Spring and take this
problem seriously.

There was a very productive breakfast meeting that the Senate Council hosted for the local
legislative delegation last week. It was well attended by Senators Moloney and Philpot and
Representatives Scorsone, Fletcher, Brandstetter, and Cave. which is almost the entire delegation.
It was a wonderful opportunity to share our concerns and opinions regarding health care, funding
issues, impact of decreasing resources on students, facilities, teaching and research. We were
really able to bring up a lot of things that we believe faculty are concerned about and had an open
and productive discussion. Senator Moloney suggested that we do this again in January. If you
have any input please let us know.

December 12, 1995 is the Senate Board of Trustees Social, it is going to be held from 4:00 -
6:00 pm at the Alumni House.

AGENDA ITEM 1: Consideration of and Action on Position Paper, Coalition of Senate
and Faculty Leadership (COSFL)

Professor Jan Schach, Chair-elect of the Senate Council moved approval of the item on
behalf of the Senate Council. Professor Schach reviewed the background of the proposal and
asked Professor Mather, President of COSFL to comment.

Professor Loys Mather (Agriculture), President of COSFL, stated the primary reason for
the statement goes back to the session that COSFL had with state legislators last spring when
concerns about funding for higher education were being discussed. One of the prime messages
was that when matters concerning higher education were on the table in the legislature, rarely if
ever do they hear from faculty and faculty senates. This is a chance for Senates to express
concerns about the funding for higher education.

The position paper reads as follows:
Statement of Support for Higher Education

by the
Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leadership (COSFL)


 _ 3 _
Minutes. University Senate, December ll, 1995

Support for higher education in Kentucky has seriously eroded in the recent past. While
state tax revenues have increased by 40% over the last decade and enrollment in state
institutions has increased by 34%, state general funding for higher education has
decreased by 3%. Faculty members at Kentucky's public institutions of higher education,
speaking through their respective faculties/senates, endorse the position paper of the
Kentucky Advocates for Higher Education and applaud their efforts. In addition, we
endorse the Council on Higher Education's funding proposal for 1996-98. We encourage
consideration of the needs of higher education in any governmental discussion of budget
surplus or restructuring of tax laws.

As faculty members of Kentucky's public institutions of higher education, we welcome
the opportunity to work closely with the new administration in its efforts to gain broad
support for higher education in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.



The above statement was developed by the Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leadership
(COSFL). The Coalition of Senate and Faculty Leadership for Higher Education in
Kentucky (COSFL) is cooperating the Advocates for Higher Education in encouraging
support for the revised formula for funding higher education in the 1996-98 biennium.
Accordingly, COSFL is asking all faculty senates at public universities and community
colleges in Kentucky to endorse the statement of support.

COSF L is composed of senate chairs. faculty trustees/regents, and other designated
faculty leaders from Kentucky's public universities and community colleges. One of its
functions is to serve as an advocacy body on behalf of its collective membership before
the Council on Higher Education, the governor,'the legislature. and the general public.
This statement is but one part of COSFL's advocacy efforts.

The Senate Council approved the statement unanimously and recommends it to the

If approved, the statement will be forwarded to Professor Loys Mather. current President

Support of the position paper passed in an unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules. Section V -
(Repeat Option).

Proposal: (add underlined section)
Section V -
’1‘ A student may exercise-a repeat option using a correspondence course taken at the

University of Kentucky. For students previously matriculated at the Universiy of


 _ 4 _
Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

Kentucky (UK) but who are now enrolled solely in UK correspondence courses, the
repeat option may be applied for and approved by the Dean of Universig Extension,
in coordination with the student's prior UK college. For students whose sole UK
enrollments have been in UK correspondence coursework, the repeat option may be
applied for and administered through the Dean of Universig Extension.


* Indicates a Rules Committee interpretation


The original proposal was submitted by the Academic Ombud last spring. The Admissions
and Academic Standards Committee considered the proposed change to Senate Rule (repeat option) at a meeting held April 28, 1995. The committee decided to delay
making a recommendation regarding the proposal until it had time to confer with University
Extension on correspondence courses in general.

This year's committee met with Dr. Phil Greasley (Dean of University Extension) and Dr.
Earl Pfanstiel (Independent Study Program) on October 16, 1995. Based on the
discussions held, the Committee agreed with, in principle, the policy of permitting students
to exercise the repeat option using a correspondence course, but felt that the working of
the proposed statement did not describe accurately the two categories of students to which
the policy would apply. The amended working (above) was approved by the Committee.
At its meeting on November 27, the Senate Council approved the Committee's report.


Presently a student exercises a repeat option by notifying "in writing the dean of the college
in which the student is enrolled". Thus a student who has transferred to another institution
and who does not have a major or direct involvement with a college needs an
administrative unit to process the repeat option.

This would also include students who have transferred to another school but wish to repeat
a course by UK correspondence for one taken earlier at UK.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1996.

Note: If approved the proposed change will be sent to the Rules Committee for

Professor Jan Schach introduced the proposal and reviewed the background, she moved
approval of the item on behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Dan Fulks (Business and Economics) asked what was meant by in coordination with
the student's prior college?


 _ 5 _
Minutes, University Senate, December 11. 1995

Phil Greasley (University Extension) stated they felt each student should have recourse and
access to the repeat option. They will handle that for the University, however in the event a prior
UK student has been affiliated with a given college they will give that college the option at
exercisingjurisdiction, otherwise University Extension will handle it.

Professor Jess Weil (Physics) asked if University Extension would have access to the records
of students concerning the number of repeat options a student had used? Professor Schach said if
not that would be handled by the Registrar‘s Office.

The proposal passed unanimously in a voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Proposal to change the University calendar to designate two
midterm reading days the first Monday and Tuesday of October.

Professor Jan Schach reviewed the background of the proposal and recommended approval on
behalf of the Senate Council. The proposal reads as follows:

Change the University Calendar (University Senate Rules, Section ll) to designate the first
Monday and Tuesday of October as mid-term reading days. No classes will be held.


On February 8, 1995, the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate overwhelmingly
approved two resolutions requesting the University of Kentucky create two new reading
periods in the calendar. The first Was to be a mid-term reading period in the Fall
Semester. The second was a proposed two-day addition to the current reading period
preceding final examination week in both the Fall and Spring semesters. To accommodate
the lost teaching days, it was proposed that classes begin on a Monday rather than a
Wednesday. Following their approval by the SGA, the proposals were forwarded to the
Senate Council with a request for consideration and action.

The Senate Council considered these proposals at several meetings, and on September 25,
1995, approved them on academic merit with a proviso that they be reconsidered after the
students had contacted non-academic offices to determine the impact of the proposals on
other areas of the University. The students contacted Dr. Jack Blanton, Vice Chancellor
for Administration. Dr. James Kuder, Vice President for Student Services, and Ms. Betty
J.Huff, University Registrar, with a request that they review the proposals and "flag"
problem areas. Blanton reported having no unresolvable difficulties with his schedule or
the services his area provides if the calendar were changed: Kuder pointed out several
problems, including effects on residence hall occupancy changes, earlier orientation
scheduling. loss of some college orientation time, and changes in band and sorority rush.
Huff cited similar issues. As a result of a subsequent meeting with Huff, Kuder and SGA
representatives. a compromise was reached to withdraw the proposal for two additional
reading days before final examinations and to go forward with the proposal for


 - 6 _
Minutes, University Senate, December 1 l, 1995

establishing two mid—term reading days in the Fall Semester. At its meeting on 20
November 1995, the Senate Council approved the proposed compromise. That proposal
is before the Senate now.


The members of SGA point out the following rationale for the proposed fall semester
reading days: First, the fall semester currently has three more teaching days than the
spring. They therefore do not find it unreasonable to request a two day break during the
fall semester, particularly given the justifications that follow.

As the academic calendar stands, there are no breaks between Labor Day and
Thanksgiving (12 weeks) in the Fall Semester. In contrast the spring semester has a break
the ninth week of classes.

In addition, the students feel that the absence of a reading period prior to midterm exams
during the fall semester is detrimental to both the students' psyche and grades. A midterm
reading period would provide students with adequate study time prior to midterm exams
and adequate refl eetion time prior to the midterm withdrawal date.

The SGA does not believe the students will use this time as a "party break“ such as spring
break. Given that the period includes only 2 weekdays, they feel that this time would be
responsibly spent by students in either going home or preparing for midterrns. Further, we
do not believe that the University should shut down in any respect. Residence halls should
remain open, as should the eating facilities, and other university buildings (e.g., libraries).
These reading days would be quite worthwhile and a practical intermission. ‘

And finally, there are numerous schools that have midterm breaks. Some examples
include Transylvania University (3 days in October), Centre College (4 days in October),
University of Virginia (4 days in October), Purdue (4 days in October), Duke University
(6 days in October), and Washington and Lee University (4 days in October).


Note: If approved the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for

Implementation: Fall, 1997

Professor Jesse Weil (Physics) made a motion to amend the proposal to a one break day on
the second Friday of October. The motion was seconded. Professor Bradley Canon said he felt
the second Friday was too late. he made a motion to amend the amendment to the first Friday of
October. The amendment passed - 24 yes, 22 no in a show of hands.


 _ 7 _
Minutes. University Senate. December 1 1, 1995

Professor Dan Fulks (Business and Economics) made a motion to amend the amendment to
Thursday and Friday instead of just Friday. The motion failed in a show of hands.

The proposal to have a fall academic break on the first Friday of October passed. 28 in favor
of. 25 opposed.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Retirement Report and Recommendations - For Discussion Only.

Chairperson LaGodna invited the selected members of the Ad Hoc Retirement Committee to
come to the podium for discussion and questions. Those present were; Chet Holmquist, Chair, T.
Lynn Williamson. and Kathryn Moore. The Chair said with this particular issue the Senate
Council is seeking general endorsement of the recommendations that were circulated. Allowing
the Council the discretion to forward separate issues to the most appropriate groups or individuals
for study and/or action. The Ad Hoc Committee was appointed in July 1994 by then Council
Chair, Ray Cox and was composed of both faculty and staff, bringing a wealth of experience to
the job. They are from a variety of backgrounds. Their charge was to review and evaluate the
current program and study possibilities for new options. The Committee submitted its report to
the Senate Council in April 1995 and it was accepted and endorsed by the Council. It was a very
comprehensive and substantial report. Since this issue was identified as a priority by both the
Senate Council and the Administration for the 1995-96 academic year they delayed bringing it to
the full Senate hoping that they could work collaboratively and bring a joint proposal for
consideration. Unfortunately they have not been able to realize that goal and agree that the
importance of the issue dictated bringing these recommendations to the full Senate now for their
consideration suggestions and hopefully endorsement. As they go through the
recommendations the members of the committee will speak to recommendations answer
questions, or take suggestions.

The proposal reads as follows:

Attached is the report of the Senate ad hoc Committee on Retirement, which was chaired
by Professor Chet Holmquist. The recommendations were endorsed by the Senate
Council on 10 July 1995.

The report and a summary of previous UK proposals (prepared by Robert Lawson) are
enclosed for your information.

The intent of the Senate discussion is to elicit opinions and suggestions on key issues and
needs of the academic community in response to the ad hoc Committee's
recommendations. The Senate Council is seeking general endorsement (or not) of the
recommendations. allowing the Council discretion to forward separate issues to the most
appropriate groups or individuals for study and/or action.

Please urge other interested faculty to attend the meetings and to voice their opinions.


 Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

Ad Hoc Committee on Retirement
University of Kentucky Senate Council

Summary of Recommendations

. At the time of appointment and throughout tenure, information about retirement
policies, written in clear, easily understood language, should be readily available.

. A skilled financial planner should be hired to replace Clay Maupin who has retired.
. An additional retirement counselor should be hired for employees on the south side
of the campus, the Agricultural Cooperative Extension offices and the Community


. Retirement counselors should be skilled in health care issues to clarify for the
retirees the confusing patterns of health care services and costs.

. A long—term care insurance program should be offered to employees and retirees on
an employee paid, payroll deduction basis.

. Individuals who retire before 65 under the "Rule of 75" program should be
permitted to take courses at the University without cost.

. The "Faculty Retirement Guide" and a Retiree Handbook should be published and
distributed to all faculty approaching retirement.

. The staff of the Benefits Office should develop an advocacy role and be skilled in
relating to the many outside agencies that have dealings with the retiree.

. The University should initiate an incentive phased retirement plan for faculty.
. Retirees should have continuing contact with the University, in such areas as

volunteer activities, fund raising, benefits and privileges, health care, financial
planning, separation anxieties and leisure time activities.


 Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

A senator moved that the Senate adopt the Ad Hoe Committee's report and take the
appropriate action. The motion passed in an unanimous voice vote.

Chairperson LaGodna said she hoped the Senate would think about each of the
recommendations or any unanswered questions and either call, e-mail or get on the listserv and
discuss the issue.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:56 pm.

52% ”W

Secretary, University Senate


 FEB 2 7 1995


 -/8/— At?

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

Ad Hoc Committee on Retirement
University of Kentucky Senate Council

Dr. R. H. Cox
Chair, University Senate Council

Dear Dr. Cox:

This document is the Report of the Ad Hoe Committee that was
appointed in July, 1994. The Committee has met regularly with very few
absences, has worked hard on the responsibilities each member assumed,
and everyone has contributed. The Committee was composed of both
faculty, active and retired, and stat. If there are questions or other
concerns about the Report, please let us know.

We are interested, as a Committee, in offering our services if there
is any way in which we can assist with the implementation of the

Thank you for the privilege of wor :ing on this most important

Donald C. Leigh
Peter Bosomworth
Angela Back
Kathryn L. Moore
Dennis T. Officer
T. Lynn Williamson
Edgar Sagan
Richard Anderson
Jean Pival

Louise J. Zegeer
Chet Holmquist, Chair


 _ /’l,@/_ ) i

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

Ad Hoc Committee on Retirement
University of Kentucky Senate Council

flfablg of antgntg

The Charge and the Process

Pre—Retirernent (2—6)

Long Range

Short Range
Retirement (7—10)

Decision Making Facilitation

Incentive Phased Retirement for Faculty
Post-Retirement (12-14)
Model for Retirement Planning (15)

Appendix (16)


 -.}l - g.

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995

Ad Hoc Committee on Retirement
University of Kentucky Senate Council

In July, 1994, Dr. R. H. Cox, Chair of the University Senate Council,
appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Retirement, The Committee included
staff and faculty from Law, Medicine, Finance, Educational Policy Studies,
Human Resource Development, Engineering Mechanics, Affirmative
Action Office and the Emeriti Faculty. The Committee was to review and
evaluate all aspects of the University's current retirement program for
faculty and staff.

WThe Committee was charged with not only reviewing
and evaluating the current program bu’r studying the possibilities for
expanding the available options. The expanded options might include, but
need not be limited to an incentive phased-retirement program. The
phased—retirment option is especially pertinent in light of the recent lifting
of the cap on mandatory retirement. To anticipate the problems which
may arise from the recent emphasis on post—tenure review, programs
which allow for retirement before age 62 might also be examined. The
Committee should also study the effectiveness of current pre-retirement
counseling offered by the University and consider the feasibility of

individualized advising on matters such as TlAA/CREF options, estate
planning, long-term care insurance, medical/health issues and the
inevitable social and emotional adjustment problems attendant to
retirement from a lifetime work or profession.

2&5: am. ; The Committee formed three subcommittees: Pre-
Retirement, Retirement and Post—Retirement. These subcommittees met
regularly and submitted reports to the full Committee for review and

The Ad Hoc Committee appreciates the cooperation and support of
the Human Resource Services Department of the University. The
Committee commends that staff for the excellent and conscientious
service it has given over the years. This Report of the Ad Hoc Committee
is intended to offer suggestions for ways to make that service more helpful
to those who retire, both faculty and staff, after years of dedication and
loyal service.


 1.2 — t

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995


When reviewing the concerns about pre—retirement, the Committee
considered it necessary to examine separately the Longflanggand Short
Range aspects of pre-retirement. The long range aspects mean that
planning for retirement should begin with the commencement of
employment and should continue throughout one's career. The short
range aspects refer to the activities engaged in the one year period
immediately preceding retirement.


1) Recom/Jm/m’af/b/J: Any revisions of the Governing and/or
Administrative Regulations on retirement should be written in lay terms.
Simplicity of language should be a major consideration for all printed
materials. There should be an index of all numbers in the Administrative
Regulations (AR) and Governing Regulations (GR), especially in relation
to retirement matters.

flaming/c: Although not all members agreed, most members of the
Committee believe that there are sufficient materials and information
available to employees; one Committee member even thought that there
was an 'overload’ of materials which 'bombard' employees. Currently,
information is available about the three retirement carriers, the Employee
Benefits Office, and the University Governing and Administrative
Regulations in blue binders in the offices of the President, the Vice
Presidents, theChancellors,and King Library, the Faculty and Staff
Handbooks, and on line from the UK Computing Center in "View". The
Committee feels that a detailed index would enhance one's ability to find
the needed information.

Costs. There are no specific financial implications for this
recommendation, although revisions of the AR's and GR's and the writing
of the index would take a significant portion of a staff employee’s annual

2') Rmoxzilzzmdaf/b/z: Clay Maupin's replacement should be hired as
soon as possible. That person should be extremely knowledgeable about
all aspects of long range retirement planning.


 1,3 -21.?

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995


Ramona/c: The Committee agrees that the amount and availability
of one—on—one counseling in relation to retirement, particularly long range.
is not sufficient. With the recent retirement of Clay Maupin, there are only
two retirement counselors in the Benefits Office. They spend most of their
time with employees concerned about short range retirement planning.

Cow‘s: A person with appropriate qualifications would require a
salary in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. All funds from Mr. Maupin's
salary line should be used for this purpose and the amount should be
supplemented, if necessary. The probable extra cost, beyond funds now in
that line, would be $5,000 to $10,000.

3) Fara/IJ/zlcjzdaf/b/J: A retirement counselor should be available for
one-on—one meetings with employees‘on the south side of the campus, at.
Cooperative Extension offices and at the community colleges. This
additional counselor should spend an average of two days a week on the
south side of the campus and three days a week at community colleges
and/or Cooperative Extension sites.

Rafj'rma/e: The Committee believed that employees on the south
side of the campus and the community colleges and at the Agriculture
Cooperative Extension offices have less opportunity and contact with
the retirement counselors than those employees in the center of the
Lexington campus.

Costs: This recommendation would require that an additional
retirement counselor be hired. The cost of a counselor with benefits would
be approximately $30—33,000 of recurring funds and approximately
$10,000 on a non-recurring basis for office needs: desk, computer,
telephone and other supplies.

4) Recognize/Marlon: As the Human Resources Communications
Team formulates its objectives and recommendations, a copy of this
Committee’s Report should be shared with the members of the
Communications Team and a communications campaign should be part of
that Team’s initiatives.


 — Ally - i If:

Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995


Raf/bade: The two major problems in relation to longvrange
retirement issues are (1) communications and (2) involvement of
employees. T. Lynn Williamson of Human Resource Services, to whom
the Employee Benefits Program staff report, stated that one of the eight
major initiatives of Human Resources (HR) is "communications". The HR
Communications Team needs to realize the importance of clearly
communicating retirement matters to employees. The Pro—retirement
subcommittee proposes that the University formulate a continuously
running communications campaign about (i) retirement benefits and (2)
employees' responsibilities for their own retirement planning. It is
imperative that employees develop a better understanding of their own role
in securing their financial future.

Costs. Implementing the results of the HR Communications Team
may have cost implications, which the Committee would recommend

5) Recommendaf/bm Retirement counselors should have expertise on
health care matters and, in particular, Medicare interrelationships. If the
retirement counselors do not have the expertise, retirees should be advised
as to who the proper authority is and where that person is located.

Raf/Make: Health care is a complex, technical subject which most
persons seem to have difficulty understanding. With the ever increasing
cost of health care and with the complications of Medicare and other
health care services, health care matters seem to be more confusing as
retirement nears.

Costs: This recommendation raises no cost implications unless
another staff person will be needed in the office for counseling on these

6) Rmoxzzxzzelidaf/b/J: A long—term—care insurance program should be
offered to employees and retirees on an employee paid, payroll deduction
basis. Present retirees should be eligible to participate in this program.


 Minutes, University Senate, December 11, 1995


Raf/make: Long- term care is a significant concern of retirees.
Since long term care facilities generally are not covered by health
insurance or Medicare, because the costs of long