Staff Congress
MSU Collage Image

MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY

STAFF CONGRESS MINUTES - SPECIAL HEALTH INSURANCE & ADS MEETING

SEPTEMBER 15, 2003

MEMBERS:

Darlene Allen Gaylena Cline David Jessie *Jeffrey Liles Lora Pace Stephanie Stewart
Ed Beam Rhonda Crisp Linda Kegley Rhonda Mackin Belva Sammons Willis Taylor
T. Bumgardner *Rebecca Holbrook *Lake Kelly Terry Mays Dallas Sammons Cindy Thompson
Lisa Caskey Mike Hopper *Donna King Amy Moore *Rhonda Sloan Jonell Tobin
Joy Cecil Kristie Jenkins M. LaFontaine Pam Moore Doug Snedegar Rick Williams

*Denotes member was absent

Guests: Gene Caudill-Director of Physical Plant & Staff Regent, Academic Department Specialist: Rose Mary Johnson, Building Services Technicians:  Lisa Adkins, David Martinat, Frankie Stamper

Chair Pace called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.  A quorum was present.  Guests were welcomed.

Chair Pace reported that there are two items on the agenda today.  Since this is a special called meeting we have to stick to those two items.  The first item to be considered is the recommendation concerning the Academic Department Specialists.  

Rep. Hopper reported that the Personnel Policies and Benefits Committee met on September 10 and reviewed several documents that dated as far back as 1997.  In 2001 there was a desire to bring Academic Department Specialists back into the classification system.  They began discussing building a common job description and having all of those 19 employees rated the same.  After reviewing those documents and the letter from Provost Moore, the committee voted unanimously to bring forth the following recommendation:

Motion: The Personnel Policies and Benefits Committee recommends that Staff Congress support Academic Department Specialists in their effort to seek relief from the administration's decision to delay to some future uncertain date the classification of their positions to Non-Exempt 6, with appropriate raises.
  Proposed:  Personnel Policies & Benefits Committee Seconded:  None Needed
Discussion: Vice-Chair Stewart asked if the ADS's were upgraded, but just not getting the raise or were they not upgraded either.  Rep. Hopper said it was the committees' understanding that the classification was being delayed even after the ADS's received a letter saying they were being reclassified.  

Rep. Mackin said the position upgrade was denied also.  The ADS's are still grade 4 or 5 and ADS 1 or 2.  The ADS's have filed an appeal with Human Resources; it was turned in Wednesday morning.  Human Resources has five working days to respond.  If the recommendation is passed by Staff Congress, the letter will go to Human Resources.

Called for Vote: Passed

A letter will be drafted and sent.

Chair Pace said the second issue today is Health Insurance.  She hasn't heard anything about rates yet, but she is trying to schedule a meeting with the President.

Rep. Hopper said at the same meeting on September 10, the committee reviewed Roger Barker's presentation on the CDHP and it seemed from the discussion at the last Staff Congress meeting as if the CDHP would take the place of the base plan.  The committee came forward with the following recommendation:

Motion: The Personnel Policies and Benefits Committee recommends that Staff Congress ask for and support the inclusion of three health care options for the coming year: 1) the proposed CDHP, 2) a base plan equivalent to the current plan, and 3) an HMO plan equivalent to the current plan.  The committee recognizes that each plan will have to be self supporting and that premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket limits will have to be adjusted to meet projected costs.  The committee further recommends that the current premium plan should be dropped as an option.

A three option health plan would allow supply and demand forces to determine which plans staff will utilize based on plan costs.  

  Proposed:  Personnel Policies & Benefits Committee Seconded:  None Needed
Discussion: Chair Pace said as a matter of record, she has a petition in front of her with 250 signatures on it that supports this recommendation.  Most signatures are from staff members; a few were from faculty members.  

Comments:

  • The proposal made to Staff Congress at the last meeting meant nothing without rates.
  • Members of Faculty Senate are saying they are going to recommend that we not have the CDHP as an option at all.
  • Regardless of the numbers, we need at least three plans.
  • The Web page power point presentation still says the CDHP is a 4th option.
  • There are no numbers yet, but we are trying to have some say in the number of options available.
  • We should remove the sentence from the motion that says, 'The committee recognizes that each plan will have to be self-supporting and that premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket limits will have to be adjusted to meet projected costs.'  We don't want to look as if we support increases, etc.  We just want to recommend that we have three plans.
  • At the cabinet meeting there were only two plans discussed.
  • We don't want to be forced into a new plan that has no history.  The University of Kentucky has had major problems with this type of plan.
  • Why is there a push towards only two plans if all plans are self-supporting anyway?
  • The CDHP seems to be for people under 30 years of age, in perfect health, not married and without children.  This plan is not a good idea since most people who work here are over 35.
  • There are still a lot of unknowns.  There are issues that need to be explored before we have a new plan even as an option.
  • There is no information available about what will happen for couples who both work on campus.
  • We should keep the CDHP as an option.  It could be beneficial for some people.
  • Something different seems to be thrown out every year to take our attention away from the fact we are not getting numbers or accurate information.  We stop talking about what our premiums are and we worry about what we are going to get on our plan.  We don't know yet how well the current plan works.  We shouldn't have a new plan every year.  Human Resources said last year that the plan we were getting was going to shift the burden of the insurance and solve our problems.  The plan has been in effect less than a year and they have no financial data, but they are already trying to change it.
  • The health insurance presentation made to the Personnel Policies & Benefits Committee in August was different than the presentation made to Staff Congress last week.
  • We should use this year as a trial for the CDHP.  If the response is bad, we shouldn't have it as an option next year.
Friendly Amendment: The Personnel Policies and Benefits Committee recommends that Staff Congress ask for and support the inclusion of three health care options for the coming year: 1) a base plan equivalent to the current plan, 2) an HMO plan equivalent to the current plan, and 3) the proposed CDHP on a one-year trial basis.
  Proposed: Rep. B. Sammons
Called for Vote on Amendment: Passed
Called for Vote on Recommendation: Passed

The recommendation will be sent or hand-delivered today or tomorrow to the President, Members of the Cabinet, and Faculty Senate.

The proposed recommendation will be uploaded to the Staff Congress Web site.

Motion: To adjourn
  Proposed:  Rep. P. Moore Seconded:  Rep. Kegley
Called for Vote: Passed

Minutes submitted by:  Rhonda Crisp, Secretary