skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#8
Approved November 1, 2005.
October 18, Minutes

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2005-06


 Time:            3:15 p.m.  

Place:          Hulman Memorial Student Union 227

Present:       Chairperson S. Lamb, Vice Chair V. Sheets, Secretary Sr. A. Anderson

                    V. Anderson, B. Evans, B. Frank, C. Hoffman, J. Hughes, S. Shure

Ex-Officio:     Provost Maynard

Guests:        C. Barton, D. Gravitt, M. Greenwell

 

 

I.  Administrative Report

            Provost Maynard addressed:

1) Graduate Dean Bentil has accepted another position and will be leaving ISU; his reception is today;

2) two sessions on the Promising Scholars Program were held last week; high faculty interest—80 have expressed interest;

3) Institutional Distinctiveness session had good faculty attendance—50 attendees;

4) Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: recommendations from the Graduate Council have been received; a committee of twelve has been convened: co-chaired by CAAC Chair M. Murphy and K. Schmid; members: Deans T. Sauer and R. Green; faculty— B. Evans, H. Hudson, C. McLaren, C. MacDonald, D. Malooley, Marcia Miller; ex-officio—D. McKee, K. Snider.  In a second round, the academic support sections will be reviewed;

5) a budget overview was presented at the recent PPARC meeting; budget discussions continue with the academic deans; faculty positions critical to programs will be filled this year; unfilled faculty positions do not necessarily mean the line is given up.

 

II. Chair Report

Chairperson Lamb report:

            “Bob Johnson resigned from URC. The alternate Mary Beth Slebodnik will be informed.

The first time that I heard about the possibility of laptops being given to students with good GPA’s with completion of the core 40 was at the September 26th meeting of the Enrollment Task Force from Becky Libler who is chair of the Scholarship subcommittee of the Enrollment Task Force. I think the President’s cabinet approved it the same week.  I had no idea that it was to be moved upon that fast. While I think the initiative makes very good use of scholarship dollars, and gets much more coverage than any other scholarship initiative, I wish that faculty governance would have had greater opportunity for input.  Buy-in is important.

Now that the initiative is under way, the greatest possible coordination of marketing strategies must be made. I appeal to the Provost and the President to use their influence to achieve coordination of initiatives from marketing to financing to admissions.

The Graduate Council has already reviewed the suggested criteria in the Program Prioritization Document, as requested by the Executive Committee charge, and has made very worthwhile detailed suggestions/comments. I applaud the work of the

 

 

                                                                                                                        EC#8, 10/18/05

                                                                                                                                    Page 2

 

 

 Graduate Council. I have forwarded that report to Provost Maynard, to be given to the chair(s) of that committee.

 

III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

            1) Concerns still continue to be conveyed to OIT regarding outsourcing of the Help Desk and problems encountered when service is requested.

            2) The Provost was asked about the legal standing of a MOU with faculty; the Provost expressed his belief that it is a legal contract.

            3) Pleased that the Provost has indicated that the work of the Program Prioritization Committee will go through faculty governance committees in a timely manner.

            4) Set to rest concern that a change in the interpretation of the 12-hour teaching load policy was being advocated; all options for savings are being discussed; chairpersons are attempting to reduce sections with small enrollments and striving for better efficiency with limited resources.

 

IV. Approval of the Minutes

            Minutes of the October 4, 2005 meeting were approved. (Evans, Frank 8-0-1)

 

V.  FEBC Recommendation: Health Plan Proposed Changes for 2006

            Guests were invited to the table.  (Hoffman, Frank 8-0-1)

            C. Barton provided background for today’s recommendation.

            Approved the below FEBC recommendation (V. Anderson, Frank 9-0-0):

 

1. Change third party administration from J.F. Molloy/The Principal to Anthem.

Justification:

·      Anthem’s administration should be more comprehensive.

·      Anthem’s fees are higher than Principal, but provides greater discounts.

·      Discounts on medical providers should be approximately 10 percent greater.

 

2. Change provider networks from Sagamore to Anthem.

Justification:

·      Anthem’s network is larger than that of Sagamore.  From a review of the claims for the past 30 months, Anthem’s network contains 96 percent of the physicians/provider facilities utilized by ISU employees; Sagamore contained 93 percent.

·      Anthem has network providers across the nation which can be utilized by our retirees.

 

3.    Increase wellness payment from $200 per person per year to $600 per person per year.

Justification:

·      Wellness items are not subject to the $250 deductible each year.

·      In network charges are paid at 80 percent; non-network charges are paid at 50 percent.

·      Wellness items include well baby care, immunizations, annual physicals, OBGYN visits, mammograms, PSA testing, etc.

 

4.    Adopt a flexible spending account for employees desiring to participate.

Justification:

·      Employees will designate a calendar year amount to tax defer from paycheck to be used to pay for eligible medical expenses.

·      Will save the participating employee tax money, (State, Federal, FICA, and local taxes)

                                                                                                                        EC#8, 10/18/05

                                                                                                                                    Page3

 

·      Will save the University by having lower FICA payments for participating employees.

·      Cost is approximately $60 per person per year, which will be paid by ISU.

·      “Use it or lose it” scenario is expected to have few, if any, amounts “lost” by employee who over estimate; but such funds could be used to offset benefits paid to employees who die or terminate after a large purchase without having full year’s deductions completed. 

 

5.    Develop a fourth “tier” for prescription drug coverage – with 100 percent copay for charges that are not covered on the plan. (Anthem has not yet approved this proposal)

Justification:

·      Allows employees to purchase prescriptions through the Anthem Rx system and receive the discount provided through the program.

·      Employees then pay 100 percent of the “discounted” charge for non-covered prescriptions.

·      Prescriptions purchased could be lifestyle drugs, oral contraceptives, impotency medicines, or any other drugs approved by the FDA but not covered on ISU’s plan.

·      Payments made by the employee can also be considered eligible charges for the flexible spending account and reimbursable with pre-tax money.

 

6.    Maintain the current Retiree prescription drug program.

Justification:

·      Apply for the Medicare subsidy.

·      Provide credible service letters to employees/retirees over 65 by November 15.

·      ISU retirees will not be required to purchase Medicare Part D or alternate program

 

7. Rate Increases continue to be discussed—a final decision should be made in January.  Rates and tiers will be published before taking effect.

 

VI. New Business

            Approved the following charge for the CAAC and the Graduate Council (Hoffman, Shure 8-0-0):

“While giving input to the Program Prioritization Committee Task Force, please make sure that the Task Force is aware that Curriculum is in the primary domain of the Faculty, and the work accomplished by the task force needs to proceed through CAAC, the Graduate Committee, and the Faculty Governance process in a timely fashion.

The Executive Committee would hope to see the recommendation come out of the Program Prioritization Committee that the Process to be employed would fully recognize the proper primary role of the Standing committees.”

 

VII. Executive Session

            Motion to move into executive session. (Hoffman, Sheets 9-0-0)

            Motion to move out of executive session. (Hoffman, Frank 9-0-0)

 

                       

The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.