Meeting Minutes

Faculty Benefits

April 24, 2018

Members Present: Galen Grimes, Greg Stoner, Cassandra Kitko, Erica Smithwick, Ira Saltz, John Liechty, William Wenner, Lonnie Golden, Geoff Scott

Members Absent:  Mary Beahm, David Post, Mark Horn, Renee Borromeo, Peter Jurs

Guests: Gary Scheidecker, Compensation and Benefits; Mike Webb, Cammack Retirement


Approval of March 13th meeting minutes with no changes




No old business


Comments from the Chair:

Galen thanked the committee for the hard work during the year.

Fee Leveling in the TIAA plan

New concept = Fee-Leveling = creating fee parity for administrative costs such that every participant pays the same of their account balances. Retirement Oversight Committee has vetted this.

HR will send out a mailer to all participants in late May.  The changes will be effective for the next quarter, beginning July 1 (won’t be seen until September statement).  Therefore, it will be important to update the full senate at the first meeting in the fall.

Mike Webb (Cammack) presentation:  most people think they don’t pay any fees for their retirement plans.  Lots of resources online for participants about their retirement accounts, but the goal is to be more clear and transparent about fees.

Investment fees and management fees are the two main fees.  Consulting/lawyer fees are additional but very small (0.02 cents on $10,000).

Cammack consults Penn State around retirement plans and its management structure. Cammack is fiduciary to the plan (contractural relationship).  Role is to ensure investments in plan and other metrics (Savings rates, participation rates) are best in class. Meets with ROC every quarter to review those metrics.  $87,000/year flat fee (not based on plan assets).  This is different than management and investment fees, which are a percentage of net assets.

Management fees range from 2 basis points ($2/$10,000).  Average = $34/$10,000.  Actual fees are based on what participants choose to invest in.  Index funds are <$10 whereas real estate funds are much more expensive.  Highest is $89/$10,000 (Federated small cap portfolio).

Since most participants don’t really manage their plan, what is the default allocation and how does that affect fees?

  • Target date funds (life cycle) = $10.  Based on retirement date.  This is the default
  • Fixed (~4%)– not based on inflation, so not default
  • Managed (expensive) – not used

Could participants manage portfolio to invest in Venture funds?

  • Penn State can only legally invest in annuities and mutual funds registered through SEC. 403b1 investments (fixed annuities) and 403b7 (custodial/mutual).  Collective investment trusts now registered (new) and this might be a new investment space in the future.

Administrative fee is $5.20 on $10,000.  But some people don’t pay that fee!  This is because of “revenue sharing” ~ rebate-like structure.  That rebate is money back on investment.  CREF Stock is $32/$10000 but participant gets back $10 on that fund.  That $10 goes to pay administrative fee ($5.20) and the $4.80 goes right back to participant as credit.  Their net cost is actually $27.20/$10,000.  For other funds, the basis points are very low and there is no rebate.  Participants are not paying that management fee.

Goal: since everyone is deriving same benefit from the management plan, they should be charged equally. = “Fee-Leveling”

Going forward, if you were paying $2/$10,000, you would now pay $7.20/$10,000.

Why would we want to punish people to pay more? Are we taking money from an investment plan that people knowingly already bought into?

  • Fairness
  • Pending lawsuits (everyone should pay their fair share)
  • Most people are in target date funds and have defaulted into it (unaware)
  • Somewhat ironically, people who benefit are those in the higher cost funds

Is there a way to anticipate how these changes would influence participant portfolio value and to proactively modify it?  Yes.

Would be important to communicate what the benefits/services are – clarify the components of TIAA’s management plan and what people get for their fee. 

In the future, could there be an option to offer tiered fee structure for people who don’t want those services?

Should there be a member of Faculty Benefits committee sit on the Retirement Oversight Committee?

Discussion on HealthCare Costs Issues

  • New-Faculty List serve discussion centered on several topics: High ER costs, lack of good tools to calculate which plan is best, lack of cost transparency; high bills during the transition
  • More expensive formulary?
  • HR is planning to assess data once it’s credible to look at cost drivers. Is it price?  Is the the cost negotiation via Aetna?  Is the formulary different?
  • Should there be a health care ombudsperson? Health advocate can help with some of this, negotiate payment structure, etc.
  • By October, moving to new platform for penn state specific data based on year-to-date claims payment against plan design.
  • Is it possible to get all your Aetna claims downloaded from the website (like Highmark had)? Cassandra wasn’t sure – will check.
  • Greater competition in the marketplace would help penn state.

Proposed survey questions for Fall

  • First –assess which plan they are in!
  • How they decided which plan?
  • Did you build or use a cost-assessment tool in your decision?
  • Was there a particular problem?
  • How important would it be to have cost transparency?
  • Health care quality (do metrics exist)?
  • Efficiency of service
  • Customer service
  • Preferred voluntary benefits
  • Communication gaps?
  • What would help you take more charge of your health care?

[are there novel ways that Penn State could create unique integrated health care? Utilize experts and skills here on campus]

Could we put on the agenda next year to discuss retention issues with the Provost?

Has there been a response by the administration regarding the recreation facilities?

The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 am

Prepared by Erica Smithwick, Vice-Chair

March 13, 2018

Members Present: Galen Grimes, Greg Stoner, Cassandra Kitko, Erica Smithwick, Kathleen Noce, Ira Saltz, John Liechty, Peter Jurs, Renee Borromeo, Geoff Scott, Lonnie Golden

Members Absent:  

Mary Beahm, David Post, William Wenner, Mark Horn


Natasha Soule, Global Safety Manager, Global Programs

Mel White, Associate Director, Global Operations and Learning (Global Programs),

Lu Sun, Office of Planning and Assessment


Approval of Jan 23rd meeting minutes with no changes


Galen announced a discussion with Matt Woessner and Greg Stoner about a poll of university faculty and staff about assessment of health care changes, around early fall; HR and FB would co-create the questions. Would include questions about voluntary benefits. Goal of having a couple surveys through the 3-year contract.

Questions from the committee about this survey:

–Is there enough time to react prior to Open Enrollment?  Greg/Galen: diven that we have a 3-year contract, this may not be the issue.

–What can be changed based on the current contract?  Greg: in terms of contract with Aetna and CVS/Caremark – no changes with vendors until end of 3 year contract.  Purpose of survey is to assess performance from customer lens.

–Would the survey be the best place to raise concern raised about grievances in general beyond the scope of Aetna/CVS? For example, couples employed – shift to higher personal salary.  Greg:  this particular topic was discussed at length with JCIB, Faculty Benefits, Full Senate.

–Should we have a forensic meeting in addition to online survey?


No old business


Discussion/Presentation on Healthcare during International Travel

The office of travel risk management has several goals:  identify risks, communicate with travelers, track travelers, assist travelers, learn from best practices. Part of assist travelers is to coordinate international emergency medical travel insurance, which is now contracted through United Healthcare.  Covers university faculty, staff and dependents.  Does not cover personal travel.  Sojourn travel option– add additional 7 days before/during after. There is a provision for that coverage to be extended.

Evidence of benefits can be found on travel safety network homepage.

Generally, includes: $500,000 injury/sickness + evacuation, repatriation of remains, reunion of family members, home country benefit (continues for 30 days after arrive back home), political or natural disasters

Separate payment? There is no separate payment – blanket policy for all faculty and staff.

General discussion about what is covered between Aetna vs. United. 

Emergency evacuation + repatriation are gaps with Aetna, especially for political or natural disasters

Sabbatical?  Yes, coverage can last 364 days

Relevant to Penn State retirees?  Yes, professor emeritus still covered on penn state related travel.

Who decides its Penn State business? Should there be a definition?   Insurance company doesn’t care, so this is an internal decision by the university.  Global programs wants the scope of what this includes to be as broad as possible, to facilitate travel insurance for employees, not restrict it.

Can it be approved before you go?  When you register with TSN, you would choose personal and business travel and this could be a point in which there is a check in the systes. This is also where you can print out the Global Assistance ID Card that they should carry with them (includes the policy group ID #)

Is there an option to have additional coverage as elective through United?  Voluntary benefit?

  • Would include evacuation. Office is working on it. Don’t have data on personal travel.

How many faculty/staff actually travel and is the insurance really used? Annually about 8000 faculty, students, staff traveling abroad annually.  Low a low percentage, there are many claims that come through this plan.

What policy is relevant? TR01: International travel requirements policy

Annual Salary Report Discussion/Presentation

Lu presented the salary tables and summary report.  Erica reminded the committee that the goal is to determine alternate ways of presenting the data and/or doing additional analysis biannually.  Ideally, the tables are produced every other year (ideally housed behind a searchable database that is broadly accessible) whereas the real work is done in intervening years in terms of data analysis on key issues, presenting opportunities for more in-depth analysis.  What would those topics be?

John:  Best to present the median as well as the mean, as well as some indication of the interquartile range

John:  There is a need to determine a more strategic long-term view on faculty retention (compared to the common model, which anecdotally suggest you must get an outside offer before Penn State invests in its best faculty).  Is there a better, less reactionary approach?  Perhaps we can use this data to assess how raises are allocated.  Are they conditional on an outside offer?

We ought to not wait for outside entities to value our faculty – we should be identifying those people and retaining them before they seek additional employment elsewhere.  How do we value competence, productivity and loyalty? What faculty are at risk? What administrative sources currently exist regarding retention and what impact has this had on salaries?

At the last senate meeting, Provost Jones suggested they were developing administrative strategic tools to address the retention issues, but that there was a lack of resources to implement it.  Should we invite him to a meeting to discuss this tool and how we could potentially use the salary information to help us understand the issue?  We would like to work with administration to find a solution.

Erica: Are we assessing the right markets?  Big 10 peer institutions may not be the correct market for these retention questions.

Lu: there is a faculty exit survey report from Office of Assessment that might have some information about why faculty leave.

Kathleen/ Lonnie: Not an issue at commonwealth campuses… admin doesn’t have any incentive to retain.

Other ideas:

Ira:  We should look at total compensation (salary + benefits) – how do we compare across peer institutions?

Erica:  We should look at race, and race*gender interactions.  Use years in rank as random effect in statistical model at an aggregate level.  Is there bias across the institution?

Ira:  Are there correlations between annual evaluations and annual salary?

[there appears to be three factors influencing potential raises:  cost of living, merit, and market].  How are each influencing raises?

There was discussion of a potential Forensic meeting early in Fall 2018 in which questions to the Senate could be presented about what data analysis they would like to see in the salary report

WorkLion/WorkDay Presentation/Discussion

Greg briefly reviewed the content of the presentation to be presented on the Senate floor

Ira conveyed his dismay in receiving unhelpful feedback from a WorkDay process “Request successfully completed” that seemingly belied inefficiencies in the system.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 am

Prepared by Erica Smithwick, Vice-Chair

back to top

January 23, 2018

Members Present: Mary Beahm, Renee Borromeo, Lonnie Golden, John Liechty, Petre Jurs, Cassandra Kitko, David Post, Erica Smithwick, Greg Stoner

Members Absent:  Galen Grimes, Mark Horn, Kathleen Noce, Geoff Scott, Ira Saltz, Bill Wenner

Guests: Michael Busges, Holley Rochford, Murry Nelson


The minutes of Dec. 5, 2017 were approved as written.


Comments from the Chair: Erica reported that the UFS Officers and Chairs meeting included a lengthy discussion of the proposed changes AC-21, which would provide for the consideration of multiyear contracts for fixed-term faculty after a predetermined number of years of service. The Advisory and Consultative Report sent forth from the Senate through Faculty Affairs and IRC, was not accepted by the administration.


No old business


Proposal for WorkLion/WorkDay (Informational): Mary Beahm shared a presentation with the committee that she is working on for the March Faculty Senate meeting. The committee asked questions and provided feedback. The main points of the feedback were that the presentation needs to be shortened, as we will probably be granted 15-20 minutes for the presentation and questions, and that the presentation should focus on items most important to faculty. This would include how to find salary, paycheck and benefits information, and how to ask questions and get answers within WorkLion. Some faculty are supervisors, so there should be some information on the role and duties of the supervisors, as well. It was recognized that issues might come to light between today and the Senate meeting in March, and any relevant issues should be addressed. The FB committee voted to endorse the informational report on WorkDay/WorkLion and sponsor the report for the March meeting.

ChildCare Report (Informational): Holley Rochford led the discussion and answered questions regarding the Childcare Informational Report. A suggestion was made to include a short justification statement for the inclusion of non-PSU affiliated families in PSU childcare facilities. The mission of the University to serve the community was cited as being important, but missing in the report. Holley reported that her group is in the process of gathering data regarding the needs of faculty, staff, students, and the communities in regard to childcare. They are looking at many options and benefits included with offering childcare. Some of these would include internship opportunities for students and other connections between PSU students and personnel and the community. The FB committee voted to endorse the informational report on childcare, recognizing that there is a good possibility it will be designated as a “read only” report. The committee felt it would be good to have the opportunity to stand before the Senate next year, after data has been compiled and analyzed through Holley’s work with surveying stakeholders.

Recreational Facilities Memberships for Faculty Report: (Advisory &Consultative) The committee considered and discussed the report at length. Suggestions were made to add a statement about the importance of offering free or reasonably priced memberships to recreational facilities for faculty as a recruitment and retention issue. It was also suggested that the recommendations be strengthened and clarified. The idea of “free” versus “affordable” for memberships was debated. Many committee members were in favor of “free” on a personal level, but a majority agreed that “affordable” was probably a better word, that would leave open the possibility of free and should be determined in a committee other than just Faculty Benefits. The committee agreed that the major issue is faculty involvement in issues regarding faculty activities, such as the use of recreational facilities. The lack of faculty consultation in the recent decisions regarding recreational facilities and the associated membership fees has caused great angst among faculty. Erica agreed to add/change the report to incorporate the committee suggestions. She will send it out to all committee members via email, and we can vote to approve it and send it to Senate Council through Board Effect.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40am

Next meeting scheduled for March 13, 2017 in Business Building 213 or 217.

Prepared by Renee Borromeo and Erica Smithwick
back to top

December 5, 2017

Members Present: Galen Grimes, Greg Stoner, Cassandra Kitko, Erica Smithwick, Ira Saltz, Renee Borromeo, Peter Jurs, William Wenner, David Post, John Liechty, Geoff Scott, Mark Horn

Members Absent: Mary Beahm, Kathleen Noce

Guests: None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Oct 17 meeting minutes – no changes

ANNOUNCEMENTS: No announcements

OLD BUSINESS: No old business


  • Voluntary phased retirement program linked to premiums; HR29 Policy #10 – currently are retained at regular employee contribution rate (100% of your former salary) rather than the new, reduced salary. Is there a reason why the premiums couldn’t be reduced alongside salary reductions?

    • only a limited number of people (~ 64 currently) at any one time may be in the phased retirement
    • Currently, when the premiums calculated, there is a snapshot to previous October pay. HR is currently exploring how WorkDay can do instantaneous premium based on what you are actually getting paid. Not just phased retirement – other situations, too. Looking at it for 2019 to do it real-time (every pay period). Can’t do it for 2018 because everything is already rolling.
  • When this is worked out, we should adjust the policy to ensure that this is clearly communicated. Likely can have that conversation in the first quarter of next year.
  • Rec Hall report – informational or A&C?General discussion of whether an informational report should be provided prior to advisory report with general goal to improve transparency. An informational report could be a written report or a presentation by Laura or Damon Sims. General consensus that we need to ensure that faculty perspective/concerns are voiced through the committee. Pacing of informational vs. Advisory might be determined on how quickly things are moving forward on Rec Hall (Erica will check with Laura Hall at meeting following FB meeting on Dec 5th).Ira put forward a motion that was edited by committee. Final version is:In light of the university’s strategic plan on “enhancing health”, we recommend that all final decisions about recreational facilities, including access and fees across the University, including for example, Rec Hall, should be delayed until there is adequate, comprehensive consultation with the faculty.
    Motion Passed.Discussion was held about whether it would be important to say that a report is currently being prepared by Faculty Benefits, but consensus was that it would be better to keep it simple.Areas of focus for a report could be:
  • Condition extant today
  • What is being proposed changes to facilities
  • Reservations about current changes and that we would expect a response from admin [if Rec Hall has to have limited access, for whatever justified reason, then university ought to compensate with other mechanisms (access on west end of UP)]
  • As a goal, we are looking for open/free access, changes to policyConversation about broadening the report to move beyond Rec Hall issue to focus on wellness/strategic plan issues. Narrow focus on Rec hall may not do us any favors;Key elements of a report could be:
  • Important to say it is not coming out of student dollars.
  • Access vs. Pay = two separate issues.
  • Open access to communities and dependents.
  • Focus on consultation issue = we haven’t been consulted; we’d like to be included.
  • Importance of this topic as faculty benefit?
  • for recruitment/retention
  • competitive advantage for Big10 institution. [Benchmarking important but may have been part of the Rec hall report to President’s Council. Erica will check with Laura what has been done. Do we know what is happening to other campuses? Pros/cons of uniform policy across the entire university?]Join with Student Life? Recreation Life? UPUA?
    Erica will provide a short summary of the discussion with Laura Hall back to Galen and the committee.FT1/life insurance issue –  Issue is that a short-term change in appointment does not negatively influence life insurance; Greg responded that this issue was resolved. It is an issue with the legacy system; in WorkDay, will likely remain as a snapshot for the previous 12 months.CVS/Aetna merger:  HR services group and strategic partners, nothing will change for first half of 2018. If impact, it would be 2019/2020. It is understood that there is a plan to keep businesses separated, which should not influence business as usual. We do have ability to ultimately break contract should deleterious issues arise.Location of new meeting for spring semester meetings– Business building; John will explore the options. Galen will talk with Senate for a back-up if needed.

New Business

  • Considering the advent of tax scheme, is there someone who could consult with legal counsel who could advise faculty benefits of the implications? Tuition remission, medical costs, charitable donations. Galen will talk with Nick Jones through FAC to invite someone. Greg is involved with Government and community relations committee; perhaps there is someone in that group who could also come. Differential taxation in undergraduate and graduate programs.
  • John: scope for having the university rethink their retention model, especially as it impacts salary? Is it possible for the Provost to explain the process of how this is being done in a proactive way? What is the overall system for rewarding loyalty and quality? Who are faculty most at risk? Does the provost have a way of assessing this in a systematic way so as to be more strategic? For our salary report: are we benchmarking across the right institutions? Should we consider a different benchmarking system for different colleges/units?  Should Nick Jones or Betty Harper be re-invited to the meeting? There is a strategic opportunity to modify next year’s faculty salary report to decide what other data or analysis might be needed. Look at the impact of VRP?  Contact faculty affairs who has an interest as well. Joint meeting?

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am.

Prepared by Erica Smithwick, Vice-Chair
back to top

October 17, 2017

Members Present: William Wenner, Galen Grimes, Greg Stoner, Kathleen Noce, Ira SaltzRenee Borromeo, Mary Beahm, John Liechty, David Post, Geoff Scott

Members Absent:  Peter Jurs, Mark Horn,

Guests:  Laura Hall – Senior Director Campus Recreation, Holley Rochford, Dir., Early Childcare Programs and Services, Murray Nelson, Faculty, Rina Kumar, Assist Project Director, WorkDay, Robin Hass, benefits and Absence Lead;


Approval of Sept 12th meeting minutes approved with no changes


No announcements


No old business


 Update on Status of Childcare

  • HR48 revised as of September 1 (non-policy language and reference to AD39 was removed – no longer relevant to childcare);  minimum health and safety requirements added; changes around first aid and CPR; requires trainings for medical services;  admin person on site; Protocols on misconduct;
  • Childcare is part of HR strategic plan and equity and funding are priority topics.  Nick Jones asked that the funding models be reviewed, using benchmarking and assessing needs for childcare.  This spring will launch university wide survey to gauge people’s needs for childcare to prioritize program development.  Child Care Advisory Committee (CCAC) is working to develop the survey.
  • Important focus is consistency across different management models, particularly with regard to curriculum, given the variety of management models (Kindercare, Bright Horizons, and Montessori (non-profit Altoona), our own centers), with focus also on teacher pay/turnover issues.
  • Affordability.  Sliding scale, benchmarking within community.  For students, we have done well.  Support low-income students (serving 80-100 students/year), esp at campuses.
  • Engagement with faculty/Diversity and Inclusion.  Gaps in knowledge in diversity/inclusion (students being served are more diverse than staff).  Training series for teachers; now more faculty involved who are helping to model appropriate ways of working with children;  integrating diversity and inclusion into the curriculum.  Lunch and learn (Erica Frankenberg) around different topics (raising anti-racist children).
  • Added back-up childcare services at Hershey – run by Bright Horizons.  Utilization not high, but contract likely to be renewed.
  • Fundraising for teacher professional development underway to bring-in external leaders; allow teachers to go to national conferences.

Questions from Faculty:

  • Ira:  are there plans to expand?  Holley: Depends on need; Shenango (lots of student parents) – it’s a need.
  • Galen – what’s the minimum # of children needed to make it profitable?   Holley: 130 children to achieve financial balance.
  • David:  serves community?  Holley:  yes, but we prioritize university parents.  David – what’s the rationale?  Holley:  makes it cheaper to afford it + good stewardship with community.
  • Galen – How much does it cost? $1100/month for infant.
  • John – how much are we spending?   Holley:  $5,000,000 university support– mostly fringe for UP;  $230,000 Behrend. $880,000 combined direct subsidy;

Comment on the Smoke Free report:

  • David: are we approving the goal or specifically the implementation steps?  How feasible will this be to really enforce?
    • Kathleen – has happened in small campuses near us, and no issues
    • Renee – soft enforcement, reminders, and marketing.
  • Prohibits us from brining in recruiters to the business school?  Renee – there is nothing in the recommendations about that.
  • Issue with role of investments? This is an issue for administration and to ask the President.   Galen volunteers to ask the President.
  • What about employees on contract?  Will be negotiated as part of contract.

John:  Issues with recruitment and retention of tenurable faculty – why can’t we retain good people?  What is the role of HR?  Role of compensation?  Role of management?

  • Discussion: Faculty Affairs has been working on this, including gender equity, hiring, etc.
  • Erica mentions that this could be explored partially through the salary report we sponsor. This year just on salary, but we plan to expand the scope of the report in the future. For our next benefits report – can we push the data to unpack more deeply why we are not retaining people?  Are there trends?

Update on the status of Rec Hall

  • Laura Hall – nothing has changed.  David Gray, Nick Jones, and Damon Sims advising the president re: Rec Hall.
  • Laura reviewed the issue: Students voted to create a student-initiated fee that went directly to campus recreation. The change was a result of new operational budget to manage facilities in contemporary and comprehensive manner.  Students paying mandatory $57/student/semester to campus operational purposes.  In addition, facilities fee initiative per year – which completed funded the IM building.  $86 million dollars of that fund went to Recreation facilities over the last 4 years.  The students contribute about 78% of campus recreation budget.  Students paying for access; necessitates us to model usage against fees.  Some faculty and staff paying ($230 annually, or $95 per semester), past 12 years or so, but some faculty were not paying anything, which is an unusual model based on benchmarking.  Then looked at equity-based membership model.  Set faculty/staff rate below market value and at low end of benchmarking fee structure.
  • David: what about the community member fee and the exclusion of minors from recreation facilities (AD73)
    • Last march – access control (3 year project) completed.  Not the norm for facilities to be open carte blanche.
  • John – we force students, thus we should force faculty is the logic, but this is inappropriate because it dissuades people from engaging.  Its divisive.  Makes us look bad to the community.  Galen – there are other fees that we don’t pay.
    • Lauren – was student-led.
  • Geoff – faculty should be encouraged to use the fitness center.  We’re self-insured but discouraging faculty from using facilities.  Forgetting about the bigger picture, we should encourage use of the facilities by faculty, as part of benefit program.
    • General discussion: would more people exercise if it were free?  Supply/demand.  But individual behavior hard to change.
    • Renee:  could be recruitment and retention opportunity if the university could subsidize.
  • Murray – implemented without faculty input.
    • Lauren: was discussed in front of President’s Council, but faculty voice was not loud. No communication back out.  Faculty Senate member on advisory council but there was a communication gap in getting back to this committee.
  • John – recommend subsidy; impact of Rec Hall on brand image.  Iconic place.  Way to get communities/minors into facilities.
    • Kathleen – but how much money have we lost via Sandusky?
    • Lauren – intercollegiate athletic facility, not Student Affairs/rec hall facility.
  • Erica: We can write an informational report now or we can write an advisory and consultative report that speaks to rec hall, faculty input into benefits process.
    • Geoff – benefits committee make sure to keep the focus on benefits related issues.
  • Laura presented data on faculty usage of facilities. $650,000 to run rec hall annually. Proposal is that the President will contribute that fund to keep Rec Hall operational.  Usage of Rec Hall does not match the usage in other facilities nor the % of students.  Rec couldn’t justify spending this amount with so little faculty use.  Hepper Fitness Center has ~1500 student/day vs.  4700 at IM building.  3700/day at white building vs. 110 at Rec Hall.  $650,000 for 38 faculty per day is not sustainable. Lauren will provide the usage data (including Natatorium data) to the committee by end of the week.
  • Murray – alumni association requirement?
    • Lauren:  this is a common model at all Big 10 campuses.
    • John – this would dissuade me.

Update on Work Day – slideshow

Project Update: important dates

Dec 10 – launch (biweekly employees who track time can start doing so); Jan 31 – first paycheck for monthly employees

Nov 1 open enrollments will be through the old system; change the backend – all that data will be running with the new system.

User engagement testing

3 weeks of intensive testing finished.  Approximately 450 users (including WorkLion Faculty Advisory Committee)

5th round of payroll rectification testing happening now.

UET shows positive feedback (intuitive).  Areas of concerns – managers, approving time.  Title changes in IBIS (legacy systems haven’t been updated).  Data clean-up activities – how will they be handled?  HR Shared Services center would handle this.  Neocase case management system will help provide visibility and track issues.


Available starting Oct 23rd.  On demand, online.  Training paths can be found at

Key faculty take-aways

In 2018, faculty will view, enroll, and change benefit elections in Workday
Benefit functionality will be enhanced
Faculty can view and change paymet elections, such as direct depositBeneficiary information might need to be updated because old information not already in legacy system, would be on paper.
Supplemental retirement contributions can be online.

Faculty can designate proxies for time approvals.

Workday Demo was shared with the committee.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am .

Prepared by Erica Smithwick, Vice-Chair
back to top

September 12, 2017

Members Present: William Wenner, Galen Grimes, Greg Stoner, Kathleen Noce, Ira Saltz, Geoff Scott, Peter Jurs, Renee Borromeo, Mary Beahm, Peter Jurs, David Post, Mark Horn

Members Absent: Lonnie Golden, Cassandra Kitko (resource), John Leichty

Guests: Katie Jordan – UPUA, Brent Rice – UPUA, Laura Hall – Senior Director Campus Recreation, Diane Andrews – Associate VP for Student Affairs, Jaclyn Butler – Office of Planning and Assessment, Laurie Hancock – Office of Planning and Assessment; Associate Director of Planning and Institutional Research, Lu Sun, Office of Planning and Assessment


April 25th meeting minutes approved with no changes


No new announcements


No old business


Review of charges – revised August 3, 2017

  1. University contribution per income bracket
  2. Cost increase
  3. Salary Report

Butler: For the upcoming report, plan is to reproduce old report (easiest); after that point, it is a new opportunity for restructuring the report (bi-annual; with alternate years involving more analytics).  Opportunity to understand trends and look at longitudinal trends; reinvigorate the data to give it more meaning.

Current report will be completed by January 2018 so that it will be ready for agenda on April 2018 meeting.

Jurs – balance between data and things that matter;  utility is snapshot of data across university to see trends and equity disparities.  Challenge is to find actionable data.

Grimes/Beahm – WorkLion will help make this easier (portal for data) – more user-friendly

Borromeo – all data is important for different sectors of the community.

Also important across institutions;

Executive summary report (public) + full report behind Box to ensure all data was accessible to the blind.

Scott – communication about where the full report lies is going to be and how to access it is important.

Horn – Summer supplement – is it reported?  No – focus on base salary, 9th month equivalent.  Useful for recruitment for faculty – research potential?

Butler – AAUDE; faculty compensation survey do not contain this

TPA and Time to Choose

Galen working on this – should be ready in the next couple weeks.

Informational report

Status of Child Care

Erica will reach out to Holley Rochford to prepare for fall meeting (aim for December)

Health coverage when traveling abroad

Erica: Discussions with global programs to co-sponsor;  Galen will do this

How will this change with Aetna?

Healthcare Insurance Update – Greg Stoner

  • Handout provided that provides overview of TPA changes as well as 2018 Health Care Plan
    • Medical – Aetna
    • Pharmacy – CVS Caremark
    • HSA – HealthEquity
    • Life & Disability Carrier– Unum

Introduces short-term disability program – important especially to those that don’t have leave options (e.g., new hires) because LTD doesn’t kick in for 180 days.

Stoner: Benefits – Online tools, fees, negotiated rates; Main savings from negotiated contracts with providers

General questions from the committee:

Disruption of provider network unlikely overlaps so much with Aetna and Highmark (BlueCross); if you are receiving care from UPMC/Highmark it will be accepted until June 30 2019; afterwards, Highmark will be closed. Mt Nittany Medical Group and Aetna negotiated through 2020 (end of contract).  Confident that through life of contract, the University is minimizing risk of disruptions. Where there were disruptions – that list was provided to Aetna with expectation that this will be pursued.  DocFinder – can search by name, zipcode

Differences in formulary – will be getting letter in mail – new prescription may be necessary, or you can do prior authorization

Can do mail order program and have it delivered to store/home.

UHS relationship?  Will be able to continue to use; especially for speciality drugs

What happens to the 35 million dollar university savings?  stem the tide in cost of healthcare for the university; reinvest;  hard to say how it will affect specific plan design/premiums, etc.

Additional questions on FAQ webpage – feed questions to Benefits/HR

  • On Campus meetings – CVS Caremark representations and Aetna providers will be present; member service line should be available in October. Aetna line is live September 1 (Greg will ensure this is on  If answers still not available – HR can help liase to get answer.
  • Continuing line of communication important to ensure they are meeting unique needs of university; Should FB sponsor some recommendations about what to measure and monitor moving forward?
  • Health Care Plan Design. Guiding principles for Health Care Plan for 2018 based on report in March 2017; reduction in premiums for Blue, some increases in HSA.  Plan design changes made BEFORE decision to use Aetna as TPA

Scorecards to measure and monitor – use of data warehouse; use the FB committee to decide what to do with the data;  what items we could be reporting/monitoring to ensure these TPA change are meeting the needs of the university

  • Update on Quest – can save significant money to employee and university but may be underutilized (geographical gaps, awareness). 30% of labs are processed currently.
  • Update on Truven Data Warehouse – data analyst at HR who would be in charge of this; has been approved by Office of Information Security

JCIB Report– does not have benchmark to other institutions and income brackets

  • Another report later in the year to add this information – but not practical by October to get this data. In future years can be added to JCIB report.
  • Senate should provide feedback by Friday to Renee, Erica, and Galen in order for the existing report to be ready by October meeting.

Smoke Free/Tobacco Free Task Force – Renee Borromeo

-Renee reviewed the motivation for the report and the recommendations

-Outreach to new students, alums, football
-Direction to new smoking cessation programs; at least one point person on each campus to act as a Smoking Cessation resource person
-Smoking cessation penalty has gone away; it didn’t work

-Discussion about how to market this for future issues and be positive peer support while encompassing all potential issues

-Enforcement is through culture change (not penalty/fees).  Soft enforcement. Success may not be 100%, but this is the issue that received the most ‘kick-back’

-Health benefits/wellness to be used as part of marketing?  Greg:  depends on study, 3-4k/yr more expensive in terms of claims.  Discussion of whether to emphasize this in the presentation of the report.

-Contract negotiation in 2020 with Teamsters can happen only after it becomes policy.

-Differentiated impact on different socio-economic classes

-To senators, entire report + appendices will be made available, but public version will not have the appendices

-Jurs;  motion that it will be supported and put forward the report to the Senate

-Is the university prepared to come up with a response to other necessary behavioral changes such as soda, fast food?  Discussion: Separate but important issue.

-How social change happens through soft enforcement – there is literature on this (D. Post)

-Saltz Seconded.

All in favor.  Approved.

Rec Hall closing

Concerns were raised through communications to the committee about the fate of Rec Hall.  Key concerns = Fee being implemented; closed to community

  • Reasons for concern is that it is an important faculty benefit; long history of usage at UP; it is unclear how it will affect the faculty and broader community.
  • Larger issue – what’s the role of faculty/privatization? Land grant university.
  • Insurance/Liability issues? Safety in locker room

Are these issues any different than, say, for the Library?

Erica – we should separate the two issues:

(1) getting faculty involved in student affairs decisions at a governance level because the Rec facilities benefit faculty
(2) What to do about Rec Hall?

Should we benchmark across other campuses?  (appears to be lots of different fee/access structures across the campuses represented on the committee)

There may be a misperception of how these things are funded (from student fees – if students are paying, aren’t faculty supposed to as well?)

Draft of statement to read following Murray Nelson’s Statement on the Senate floor:

“FB is concerned about the implementation of this policy without adequate consultation with FB committee as it relates to faculty benefits and wellness, which has not occurred to date.  We would urge reconsideration, with proper consultation, before any policy is implemented.  We had a productive and informative meeting with Student Affairs, Campus Recreation and UPUA this morning and have offered to work with these and other relevant groups to provide a report to the Senate that reflects the justification for potential changes, their impact on faculty benefits, and in the context of a land grant institution that must also serve its students and community.”

Update from invited guests suggests that senior leadership still in discussion;

Concerns for Campus Recreation is that there are 3 different situations that are colliding:

  • Campus Recreation supervision to meet national standards and best practices; What is the relative role of resource/needs; future use IC athletics, recreation, and kinesiology;  Complex facility to supervise adequately.
  • Community usage – AD73 (turnstiles; controlled access)
  • Student initiated fee; UPUA involved; completed substantial benchmarking of peer institutions; concerned with general health and wellness for students and had changed the model for students that each student pays a recreation fee rather than gym membership; Use additional space, equipment, increase capacity. Student fees have paid for initial building phases for IM facilities – so IM should get priority for use.
  • Also, inherent inequity in previous model – 700 faculty purchasing membership for some activities but not all. Others able to use it for free.  Those paying subsidizing those who don’t.

200 cap set in place for community members to evolve/grow at pace.  Join the alumni association ($75) + $500 annually ($50/month) – but now this fee provides access to all facilities.

Advisory Council has Michelle Duffy (kinesiology) who currently represents faculty – can FB be part of that advisory council as needed?

Can FB help prepare a report that summarizes the justification for the decision and recommendations for moving forward?

The meeting was adjourned at 10:55am .

Prepared by Erica Smithwick, Vice-Chair
back to top