Dear
Colleague:
This
is the fourth and final report to you from the Committee on Retirement Options. Our Committee was initiated under the Faculty senate in May
2000 and continued under the Faculty Congress when that faculty governance
structure was adopted in September 2000.
On
December 11, two retirement plans were approved by the Villanova Board of
Trustees and these are being promulgated to faculty by a letter from Dr. John
Johannes VPAA. The purpose of our
own communication to you now is to provide an appropriate report to you of the
Committee’s work.
The
“window” retirement option for those age 60 or above, with at lease 15 years
of service, is being communicated to 110 faculty.
Its basic ingredients of 5% of salary times years of service matches
exactly the proposal advanced by the Committee and shared with you in earlier
communications. It also includes
virtually all of the other components of our recommendation, including longer
coverage for younger spouses than was available in either of the prior
retirement plans during the 1990’s. The
Committee is happy about all of this. It
regrets, however, that the Trustees judged that they could not accept the
extension of the window to December 31, 2002, something the Committee argued for
strongly. The necessity in the
offer to accept by March 1 may present no problem for those who are already
settled in their decision. The
Committee maintained, however, that there were other faculty who might
reasonably require more time to analyze and conclude on such a life altering
decision and that both they and Villanova would be served by the longer window.
The
University is also offering a “steady state” plan for those who are not
eligible for the window plan and/or who will retire after the window closes.
The plan, as explained in a communication from the VPAA, falls short of
what our Committee recommended. The
approved” steady state” plan, starts at 90% of salary at age 60 and declines
year by year from that. You will
recall that the Committee’s proposal started at 165% at age 60, and went down
from that figure. The Committee’s
proposal also included a steady state “phased reduction option” of up to
four years. While the Committee’s
proposal beginning at 165% was reportedly put through one running of the
numbers, there was not after this the sustained analysis and dialogue with the
Committee that was present on the “window plan.”
According to the VPAA, the 165% proposal created disincentives vis a vis
the window plan and would have cost the University more than it believes it can
afford.
The
eighteen month proves that has now culminated in the Board’s action did
manifest many moments of outstanding faculty and administration collaboration,
and all of the following have the thanks and appreciation of the Committee for
their contributions to that: John
Kelley, Jim Kane, Rick Sieber, Debbie Fickler and particularly Jack Johannes.
Finally,
we will communicate to you again what we have already stated in two previous
reports. “The Retirement Option
Committee is not suggesting that any group of faculty retire.
Its initiative is simply to give faculty the service of research and
collective representation so that faculty who may for many reasons consider
retirement, can do so in a way that reflects the graciousness of a
life-relationship with Villanova. We
are working for what should be a win-win situation.” Amen
Respectfully submitted,