Faculty Seeks Benefits Review

In the wake of a faculty report criticizing the lack of faculty involvement in the University-wide benefits review process, professors spoke in favor of creating a standing committee on benefits at yesterday's packed meeting of the full Faculty.

Faculty members asked, however, whether the committee would investigate benefits changes which have already been suggested by the University-wide benefits task force.

Gund Professor of Economics Richard E. Caves and McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering Frederick H. Abernathy presented a report released to the faculty last week stating that the professors were not adequately consulted in last year's University-wide benefits review process.

The proceedings of the benefits task force "flew in the face of a tradi- tion of consultation with the faculty in relation to benefits and total compensation," the report says.

President Neil L. Rudenstine acknowledged his responsibility for the faculty's unhappiness.

"This process from beginning to end was my responsibility," Rudenstine said yesterday. "To the extent that there are errors, flaws or problems, I see it at my door. I agree there were flaws. The degree of consultation was much less than it should have been." At times during the meeting, Rudenstine appeared visibly upset.

The faculty's report recommends establishing a standing benefits review committee to "provide an official avenue of communication for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in any future situation where major changes in benefits must be considered by the central administration."

But one faculty member at the meeting wondered if the committee would address changes to faculty benefits already announced, such as cutting faculty pensions by one percent and tying Harvard's health care premium contribution to salary level.

"There is no mention made or review of the changes that have been announced," said Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures Mary M. Gaylord. "Would this committee only look to the future?"

Caves replied that he and Abernathy did not feel it was their place in the report to decide what the committee's actions should be.

Other faculty members shared Gaylord's concerns about the committee's function.

"Many of us would feel quite clearly that if there are unresolved issues concerning the benefits proposal, that the committee would certainly take on those issues," said Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee has not yet been created; the full Faculty is slated to vote on it at December's meeting. But Knowles has already appointed three professors to continue to advise him on benefits--perhaps forming the core of such a committee.

President Rudenstine also urged the creation of a university-wide benefits standing committee that would be "representative of all the schools" and have "significant faculty representation.

One of the "unresolved issues" raised at the meeting was Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul's assertion that the benefits task force greatly overestimated the amount faculty members would have in their pension funds upon retirement.

When inflation is taken into account, Paul said, "there is no predicted overachievement of the [pension] plan's goal."

He concluded that the task force's "final recommendations are badly flawed."

Because the proposal for the benefits standing committee preempted his motion, Paul did not move that the Faculty recommend to the Corporation to rescind the one percent pension cut or that Knowles appoint a committee to study the faculty retirement and medical benefit plans.

McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics Anthony G. Oettinger, scheduled to make two motions at the meeting, also declined to do so in light of the proposal for the benefits standing committee.

He did, however, suggest that the committee should carefully consider what, assumptions the task force made in arriving at its conclusions.

Rudenstine assured the Faculty yesterday that "The standing committee...will take your concerns seriously."

Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences Mary C. Waters said that the report's assumptions were inaccurate.

"The report implied that Harvard was more generous than other institutions across the board" in regard to benefits, Waters said. "It assumes that junior faculty will reap the benefits of faculty members over 40 when they get to be over 40. But most junior faculty, as we know, do not spend their senior years at Harvard."

Gaylord said that young, non-tenured faculty members are getting short shrift from the plan.

"I would rather we would take the cut as over-40 faculty members and work to eliminate the discrepancy between young and old," Gaylord said.

She also raised the problem of discrepancies in staff and faculty benefits.

"I submit that if Princeton and Cornell, with far smaller endowments, can provide the same benefits for faculty and staff, then Harvard can do that too," Gaylord said.

Since Harvard staff members are disproportionately women, she added, giving lower benefits to staff members means making life more difficult for female staff members.

"I'm embarrassed that Harvard would thus want to contribute to the feminization of poverty in retirement," Gaylord said.

Structure Report

Although the Report on the Structure of Harvard College was held from last month's meeting and was the first item on yesterday's docket, it generated little discussion.

Undergraduate Council President David L. Hanselman '94-'95 expressed the council's support for keeping the current Dean of the College and Dean for Undergraduate Education positions rather than collapse them into one.

"The big issue for the student is accessibility," Hanselman said. "If the Faculty selects the two-dean model, students will continue to have more direct access and better quality access to the Dean of Harvard College. If the Administration goes with the single dean model, the Dean of the College will be insulated from the students by an additional level of administrative bureaucracy."

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles said last week that he wanted to wait to make a decision on the structure of the Dean of the College until-after he heard faculty input at yesterday's meeting

President Neil L. Rudenstine acknowledged his responsibility for the faculty's unhappiness.

"This process from beginning to end was my responsibility," Rudenstine said yesterday. "To the extent that there are errors, flaws or problems, I see it at my door. I agree there were flaws. The degree of consultation was much less than it should have been." At times during the meeting, Rudenstine appeared visibly upset.

The faculty's report recommends establishing a standing benefits review committee to "provide an official avenue of communication for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in any future situation where major changes in benefits must be considered by the central administration."

But one faculty member at the meeting wondered if the committee would address changes to faculty benefits already announced, such as cutting faculty pensions by one percent and tying Harvard's health care premium contribution to salary level.

"There is no mention made or review of the changes that have been announced," said Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures Mary M. Gaylord. "Would this committee only look to the future?"

Caves replied that he and Abernathy did not feel it was their place in the report to decide what the committee's actions should be.

Other faculty members shared Gaylord's concerns about the committee's function.

"Many of us would feel quite clearly that if there are unresolved issues concerning the benefits proposal, that the committee would certainly take on those issues," said Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee has not yet been created; the full Faculty is slated to vote on it at December's meeting. But Knowles has already appointed three professors to continue to advise him on benefits--perhaps forming the core of such a committee.

President Rudenstine also urged the creation of a university-wide benefits standing committee that would be "representative of all the schools" and have "significant faculty representation.

One of the "unresolved issues" raised at the meeting was Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul's assertion that the benefits task force greatly overestimated the amount faculty members would have in their pension funds upon retirement.

When inflation is taken into account, Paul said, "there is no predicted overachievement of the [pension] plan's goal."

He concluded that the task force's "final recommendations are badly flawed."

Because the proposal for the benefits standing committee preempted his motion, Paul did not move that the Faculty recommend to the Corporation to rescind the one percent pension cut or that Knowles appoint a committee to study the faculty retirement and medical benefit plans.

McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics Anthony G. Oettinger, scheduled to make two motions at the meeting, also declined to do so in light of the proposal for the benefits standing committee.

He did, however, suggest that the committee should carefully consider what, assumptions the task force made in arriving at its conclusions.

Rudenstine assured the Faculty yesterday that "The standing committee...will take your concerns seriously."

Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences Mary C. Waters said that the report's assumptions were inaccurate.

"The report implied that Harvard was more generous than other institutions across the board" in regard to benefits, Waters said. "It assumes that junior faculty will reap the benefits of faculty members over 40 when they get to be over 40. But most junior faculty, as we know, do not spend their senior years at Harvard."

Gaylord said that young, non-tenured faculty members are getting short shrift from the plan.

"I would rather we would take the cut as over-40 faculty members and work to eliminate the discrepancy between young and old," Gaylord said.

She also raised the problem of discrepancies in staff and faculty benefits.

"I submit that if Princeton and Cornell, with far smaller endowments, can provide the same benefits for faculty and staff, then Harvard can do that too," Gaylord said.

Since Harvard staff members are disproportionately women, she added, giving lower benefits to staff members means making life more difficult for female staff members.

"I'm embarrassed that Harvard would thus want to contribute to the feminization of poverty in retirement," Gaylord said.

Structure Report

Although the Report on the Structure of Harvard College was held from last month's meeting and was the first item on yesterday's docket, it generated little discussion.

Undergraduate Council President David L. Hanselman '94-'95 expressed the council's support for keeping the current Dean of the College and Dean for Undergraduate Education positions rather than collapse them into one.

"The big issue for the student is accessibility," Hanselman said. "If the Faculty selects the two-dean model, students will continue to have more direct access and better quality access to the Dean of Harvard College. If the Administration goes with the single dean model, the Dean of the College will be insulated from the students by an additional level of administrative bureaucracy."

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles said last week that he wanted to wait to make a decision on the structure of the Dean of the College until-after he heard faculty input at yesterday's meeting