DRAFT FA MEETING MINUTES

March 30

Present: Cathy Cahill (acting Chair), Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya, Robert Boeckmann, Jon Dehn, Jennifer Reynolds, Mike Stekoll, Josh Luther (System Governance) . Guests: Paula Dodson, Chas St. George, Pat Gamble.

No minutes to approve. The Chair, Dan Monteith, was in Cuba doing field work and Cathy Cahill stepped in as acting Chair.

Strategic Directions: The normal agenda was set as ide and the meeting was used as a Strategic Directions lis tening session fo r Faculty Allia nce.

Those present first reviewed the status and plans for the listening sessions. Chas St. George has been handling the production of notes from the listening sessions. All iance members noted that these are not transcripts per se, and terms such as "notes" or "minutes" are more appropriate. He will analyze them and organize responses into themes. There will be a total of 80 sessions. Several Alliance members will participate in a July 27 meeting of the chancellors, provosts, and Statewide Academic Council with Terry MacTaggart. They will discuss the next steps for Strategic Directions. Analysis of the results within the three MAUs will involve the deans, and the details of the process will be up to the chancellors.

During the rest of the meeting, Paula Dodson conducted a formal listening session with Faculty All iance members. President Gamble attended this portion of the meeting.

U N I V E R S I T Y of A L A S K A

Faculty Alliance Friday, March 30, 201 2, beginning at 3 :OOpm by videoconference Anchorage site: Bragaw 21 0 Fairbanks site; 204 Butrovich Building Juneau site: Hendrickson Annex I 0 I d Audio Conference Number: 800 893 8850 Audio Confe rence Pi n: 21 5125 1

DRAFT AGENDA I. Call to order and Roll Call

Dan Monteith, President, 20 I 1-201 2 Chair; President, UAS Faculty Senate Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya, President, UAA Facul ty Senate Robert Boeckmann, I st Vice President, UAA Faculty Senate Cathy Cahill, President, UAF Faculty Senate Jon Dehn, 2009-20 I 0 Alliance Chair; Past President, UAF Faculty Senate Jenni fer Reynolds, President-elect, UAF Faculty Senate Mike Stekoll, President-elect, UAS Faculty Senate Sherry Tamone, Past President, UAS Faculty Senate

Joshua Luther, System Governance

2. Adopt Agenda

3. Approve M inutes

4. Report of the Chair

5. Public or Guest Comments

6. Complete Co llege America (http://www.completecollege.org/)

7. E-Lab Task Force

8. Health Care Changes

9. External Administration Committee/Council Reports and Liaison/A lternate Appointments 9. 1 Statewide Academic Counci l

A lliance Members: Dan Monteith, Robert Boeckmann, Cathy Cahill

9.2 Human Resources Council­Liaison: Jennifer Reynolds

9.3 Student Services Council Liaison: Robert Boeckmann

9.4 Instructional Technology Executive Councii!ITEC http://www.alaska.edu/pmo/governance/ itec/

New Interim Chair: Michelle Rizk Liaison; Jon Dehn; Alternate: Sherry Tamone

9.5 Joint Health Care Committee- http://www.alaska.edu/benefits/joim-health·care· commiu/

9.6 Other Committees/Counci ls

I 0. Other Items of Concern

11. Agenda Items for Next Meeting April 20th

12. Comments

13. Adjourn

~ University of Alaska Memorandum

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

December 21 , 20 II

Patrick Gamble, UA President

Saichi Oba, U~~ Enrollment

Complete College America (CCA) participation

A year ago Governor Parnell inquired as to UA's ability to participate in the Complete College America initiative. I am aware that UA's participation was also a topic of discussion at President's Cabinet prior to the December Board of Regents meeting. Furthermore it is my understanding- from Michelle Rizk- that you and the Chancellors are waiting to hear from me regarding what commitments UA would be obligated to fulfill if we participate in the Complete College America initiative.

I spoke with Ms. Dominique Raymond, the Director of the AIJiance of States at the CCA offices in Washington, D.C. For UA and the state of Alaska to join this initiative, the following commitments must be made:

I. The state of Alaska will assembJe a team of committed leaders to advance a large-scale, high-impact college completion policy agenda. (The team will consist of governor's staff, legislators, postsecondary leaders, statewide advocates for higher education, and others.)

~ 2. Within six months, the Alaska team will:

p.. r

a. Produce state baseline completion data using the CCA/NGA * Common Metrics; b. Set state and campus completion goals; and c. Develop state and campus completion pJans.

3. The state of Alaska will publicly report annually on progress toward the goals.

4. The state of Alaska will designate a state liaison to Complete College America.

Of all the commitments, setting completion goals and developing completion plans will require the most time and also require extensive support from campus and system offices. If UA does commit to CCA, a letter of affirmation regarding the above items from Governor Parnell and co signed by you is required.

Recommendation: raise this at the next President's Cabinet and call a vote - are we in or not?

*Complete College America I National Governors Association common metrics

Cc: Daniel Julius, UA Vice President for Academic Affairs Michelle Rizk, UA A VP; Carla Beam, UA VP, Chris Christense~ UA Director

UA Distance Science Labs Task Force Adopted by Faculty Alliance February 24, 2012, for Review and Approval by Faculty Senates

Chair: Daniel B Monteith Task Force Members: John M Petraitis, Andy Veh, James T Pantaleone, Mark A Fitch,

Jacqueline E Cason, Rich Collins, Rainer Newberry, Orion Lawlor, Michael S Stekoll, Deborah K Barnett, Cathy L Connor

Instruction methods are changing and evolving rapidly, with exciting opportunities but serious challenges, and this requires a more open and inclusive university-wide discussion including students, instructors, faculty, adjuncts, and administration. The University of Alaska has a mission to provide Alaskan students access to higher education. Laboratory natural science courses, which are a vital part of our bachelor's GER/core, pose particular challenges to ensure both access and quality. Crucially, lab science is about sensing and interacting with the physical environment, with the complexities as found in nature.

This policy defines a RECOMMENDED review process forGER/core lab science courses as defined below. WE RECOMMEND THAT existing lab science courses, distance or not, that have not been reviewed by this process can no longer be offered as GER/Core lab science courses starting Fall 2013.

This RECOMMENDED policy applies only to lab science courses accepted for the lab science requirement of the bachelor's GER/core at any MAU. Policies vary widely between the UAA GER /L lab courses, UAF natural science core courses, and UAS GERS lab natural science courses. Lab science courses affect every baccalaureate major, touching every department.

Principle: just as course content is governed by the department that controls the prefix (e.g., BIOL), instructional method for lab sciences is also a substantive issue that must be approved by that department. Disciplines can best determine content; disciplines are in the best position to judge instructional methods. However, Faculty Senate oversight is important to mainta in overall quality control.

In addition to review of existing GER!core lab science courses, this RECOMMENDED policy requires review forGER/core lab science courses that add or change primary delivery method between:

- Hands-on in-classroom equipment. -Take-home physical kits. - Remotely operated equipment. - Virtual/simulation, purely software onscreen.

When a new or existing GER/core lab science course changes primary delivery method, this modification requires course approval from the MAU department. Courses may be delivered experimentally using a new method up to two times prior to full review, with notification to and monitoring by the MAU department. Review is also needed via the ordinary MAU faculty senate curriculum process. Ongoing assessment and review is highly recommended.

Issues for faculty to address in proposing a lab course (see also: Supplemental Questions for Online Course Approval Requests, Berkeley Division of Academic Senate Committee on Courses of Instruction)

1. What are the goals and outcomes of the existing face-to-face sections? 2. What delivery methods will be used from the list above, and in what proportions? 3. What are the goals and outcomes of the lab sections? Are the goals and outcomes

different for different modes of lab instruction? How will the goals and outcomes be achieved, and assessed?

4. If a new mode of delivery for an existing lab course is proposed, how will the new lab section be different from existing lab sections?

5. Is there a population of students identified that need this course? 6. Student preparation: How will students be advised and screened for technology

proficiency? Do they have the prerequisite knowledge and preparation? Do they have the self-pacing skills needed for distance delivery? Are technologies introduced at an appropriate pace?

7. How will students and instructors interact? How will students and other students interact? Will the technology support a "community of learning"?

8. Will a fully asynchronous course include some synchronous time for students to ask and answer questions? Are synchronous sessions required (lecture/discussion) or optional (office hours)?

9. What are the expectations for student-faculty communications, such as email latency and frequency, and how will they be met?

10. What internet connection (bandwidth) will be required for students? For instructors? 11. Specific technology questions:

a. For take-home kits, how will the kits be purchased? Maintained? Are there safety concerns? How does the equipment in the kits compare with in-classroom lab equipment?

b. For simulations, how will they be used in this course, and how do they compare with reality? How do they compare with professional methods or practices in the field? What software will be required?

12. How will plagiarism and academic integrity issues be addressed?

Issues for departments to discuss during the lab course review process (see also: Best Practices forE-Labs, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, substituting "e-labs" for "programs")

1. What are students supposed to be learning in the existing face-to-face sections? Are they learning that, and how is it assessed?

2. Will distance courses affect face-to-face enrollment? Will distance courses draw students away from existing courses, eventually replacing them, or primarily draw in new students?

3. What impacts will this course have on the program's professional accreditation? What effect will the course have on downstream courses, using it as a prerequisite?

4. How will the course design work be supported, for the significant effort to develop a new distance course or convert an existing course? How much effort is it? Will it appear in faculty workloads?

5. Who will choose instructors for the course? How will instructors be trained in the changing technology for distance learning?

6. How is the enrollment cap determined for each distance section? 7. Will there be teaching assistants for additional distance sections? 8. How will the department validate the domain knowledge for the courses in their

discipline? Who will be responsible for that validation?

Issues for the Faculty Senate curriculum council to address for a reviewed lab course: 1. How will coordination be maintained between campuses? 2. How will intellectual property issues be handled? Who owns the course content--the

faculty who develop the course, the department, the university, the book publisher? 3. How will software, servers, and information technology be vetted, supported and

standardized? How will these be maintained for the entire lifetime of the course?

Issues the UA Task Force decided not address: • Non-GER/core science labs. Individual departments should choose how their own 300

and 400 level lab courses are designed and delivered. Further, their choices, will--in the vast bulk of cases--only impact their department and those equivalent ones of the other MAUs.

• Transferability of distance delivered courses, both between MAUs and from other institutions. UA Board of Regents Policy addresses transferability of credit both in general and forGER courses in particular (See sections P1 0.04.060 and P 1 0.04.062).

The UA Task Force recommends a annual or semi-annual inter-MAU faculty meeting would be useful to integrate the university system, which will assist with issues like transferability.

~ Health Care FY13 Questions and Answers

Q1 Why are my rates going up so much this year? The increase in employee charges has several components. First, employee bi-weekly charges for FY12 were kept the same as they had been for FY11. Secondly, more employees than we had anticipated opted for the High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) or waived coverage entirely, leaving a smaller pool with which to spread costs. Lastly, the university did not impose the unpopular tobacco surcharge. All these factors combined to create a $3.5 million "under recovery" from employees.

Q2 What does an "under recovery" mean? The University of Alaska is self-insured. That means the University pays all covered health care costs up-front, and subsequently collects the employees' portion of the costs. In FY12 and FY13, UA is obligated for 83% of the cost, and the employee obligation is the remaining 17%. The under recovery means that employee payroll deductions did not fully cover their 17%. For FY12 the total plan cost is expected to exceed $64 million. For more information on the health care accounting process, please see: http://www .alaska.edu/benefits/health-plan/health-care­accounting/

Q3 Are the rates going up because plan costs went up so much? How could that happen with the employees taking on so much more first dollar costs through the higher deductibles? Even with the plan changes UA made for FY12, we were still anticipating an increase in costs due to the general increase in the cost of medical and dental services and prescription medications. The updated projections for the full year do show that the plan is performing better than expected, with projected overall UA plan costs coming in about $5.5 million less than originally expected.

Q4 In February, 2011 the FY12 health care cost projection was $70.5 million. The latest FY12 cost projection is $65 million. Why isn't that difference of $5.5 million available to reduce employee obligations? That amount represents the forecasted reduction in anticipated health care costs that the university pays as claims are submitted. If the university ends up spending less than the originally budgeted amount ($70.5 million) then that difference is projected into the following year's budget. FY13 rates already take into account 17% of the $5.5 million reduction and are reflected in the employee contribution.

Q5 Why weren't last year's rates set to recover more of the projected cost of the plan? The UA Choice plans underwent significant changes in FY12 with increased deductibles and out-of-pocket maximum limits. Given these increases to employee out-of-pocket costs, the Joint Health Care Committee (JHCC), by majority vote, decided to leave the employee charges for the three plan levels the same as they had been in FY 11 to mitigate the impact on employees in a single year. The JHCC decided to do this knowing it could increase employee contributions in subsequent years. JHCC membership represents a cross-section of the University employee population, with members from four unions, staff governance and management.

~ Q6 So if total annual costs are less than originally projected, why are my rates going up so much? When the plan costs are less than expected the university and employees both benefit because we share the cost of the plan. The university avoids 83% of the cost, and the employees avoid 17%. This avoided cost does not completely offset the amount under recovered from employees, but it does reduce it.

Q7 Is the University reducing how much it contributes to the health plan? For FY13, the University will still pay for 83% of plan costs, with employees responsible for 17%. This is set to change in FY14, with the cost share changing to 82118. The University's goal is to move toward an 80/20 ratio, which is a typical cost share for many health-care plans. In fact, during the benefit year the university's contribution often exceeds 83% of the plan costs because it automatically pays all covered expenses as they occur. Employee contributions occur over the course of the plan year.

Q8 Is the University changing the health plan this year? The only change being made this year is the reduction in the maximum contribution to the health care Flexible Spending Account, currently set at $5,000 annually. Federal health care reform law changes the maximum to $2,500 effective January I, 2013. Because the university's FSA plan year is the fiscal year beginning July 1, we're making that change with this coming plan year.

Q9 I was planning on taking the High Deductible Health Plan this year, and using the Flexible Spending Account to fund the deductible. Now the maximum amount I can put in the FSA is cut in half to $2,500 which doesn't cover the family deductible. Why did it drop so much? The university had to make the change to comply with the new federal health care reform law.

QlO Why can't we have a Health Savings Account for our high deductible health plan? A Health Savings Account (HSA) requires that the pharmacy plan be imbedded in the medical plan. What this means is that our current plan design, with copays for prescriptions, is not an eligible plan; prescription drug benefits must be subject to the medical deductible and coinsurance provisions. This is a change we're looking to make for FY14.

Qll What is the University doing to avoid an under recovery from happening again? Projections are made using assumptions about cost trend (the rate of increase in health care costs), enrollment and the number of opt outs. In the past, we had a more stable plan design, allowing us to base more accurate trend projections on our historical data. With the recent changes in plan design this past year, we had no historical data on which to rely, so the university based projections on trend assumptions from other sources. Going forward, we'll have more information on the performance of our plan and will be able to use more historical data again. Projections are made with the best information we have available at the time, with adjustments made in subsequent years to make up the differences.

~ Q12 If the projections are more accurate will I pay less for health care? Accurate projections enable the university to set subsequent year rates in a manner that closely follows actual costs. Accurate projections provide a smoothing effect from one year's rates to another. Projections, however, have nothing to do with actual costs or employee contributions over the long term. Inaccurate projections mean that in subsequent years employee health care rates will either be low (inaccurately high projection) or high (inaccurately low projection). Regardless of the accuracy of the projections, the only direction we see health care costs going is up.

Q13 Why weren't other options considered to lower the cost of health care? Other than deferring collection of employee contributions (which is not reducing cost) there are really only two alternatives to reduce payroll contributions: reduce the scope of benefits or increase employee deductibles.

Q14 Why weren't JHCC motions adopted that would have lowered health care costs? The JHCC made no viable recommendations that would have significantly reduced health care costs. The JHCC did discuss the problem at length and looked at many different scenarios to deal with the under recovery problem. Given the general trend of health care inflation, and the fact that there is an under recovery of the employee share for FY12, consensus was that there's really nothing that could have been done with the plan to lower the employee cost for FY13. For example in two meetings in early March, the JHCC considered the following motions:

1. The JHCC proposed that the university simply forgive $1.5 million of the projected employee under recovery of$3.5 million. The motion was approved by the JHCC with 12 voting for and 2 against. That motion was rejected by the leadership of the university and the MAUs because it disregards agreement(s), including union contracts, whereby the university pays 83% of the health care cost.

2. The JHCC proposed that rates be set to collect 100% of the employee under recovery obligation in FY13. The motion was offered by the president of the United Academics (UNAC). This motion would have increased FY 13 costs even more, but failed with four abstentions from union-represented members of the JHCC. Alternatively, a motion to collect 50% of the under recovery in FY 13 also failed. This would have moved the remaining 50% to FY14, when the plan's cost share agreement in place was already changing to an 18% employee obligation.

3. The JHCC proposed that different assumptions should be used for making the FY13 projection: use a higher trend, increase opt outs to 15% (from the current 11%) and assume migration from the higher level plans to the lower plans at 25o/o. The motion passed. The projection was revised and became one of many considered. It is important to remember that the projections of future health care costs have no bearing on actual costs or employee contributions over time. An inordinately low projection simply "kicks the can down the road" and creates a substantial employee under recovery obligation in the future. That is exactly the problem we face today because the JHCC elected not to change employee health care charges for FY12.

4. A compromise motion was made and passed to collect 80% of the under recovery in FY13, with the remainder to be collected in FY14. This was seen as a way to recover most of the amount due this coming year, and passing along only a small portion to FY14. In the end this is the plan that was adopted by the president and chancellors. The employee charges for FY13 reflect the details of this plan.

Q15 What happened to the Tobacco Surcharge idea? The Tobacco Surcharge was widely criticized by a variety of employee groups, both non-smokers as well as smokers. It was viewed as intrusive, punitive to employees, and difficult to enforce. The administration first postponed it for more review, and then agreed with employees to drop it in favor of exploring alternatives. One recommendation that emerged was a policy prohibiting the hiring of tobacco users. Several other employers (Alaska Airlines and Providence Hospital for example) have adopted similar policies. A ban on hiring tobacco users would not penalize current employees, as all current employees would be grandfathered. Another significant factor in favor of this idea is a consultant's prediction of$21 million in health care cost avoidance over the next 15 years. This proposal is being vetted with governance groups. Following that it will become policy. The likely effective date is July 1, 2012.

Q16 Why did the university wait until after the newspaper published a story to notify employees? The final decision about health care rates was only just shared with the JHCC on Tuesday,

March 13. Up until that time, options were being explored and the university leadership was being responsive to the workings of the JHCC. When the university was asked to comment, the

university told the newspaper it would be inappropriate to comment in the press prior to the

scheduled communications with all affected employees. The newspaper did not include that

response in its column. The university cannot control what the newspaper chooses to print. It was

the university's plan all along to provide employees with a complete and factual report regarding

future health care rates as close to March 15 as possible. Apparently a member(s) of the JHCC r thought otherwise.