Spring Break
Board passes retirement fund plan
by Harry Shipps
Assistant News Editor
News | 5/19/09
Posted online at 3:13 AM EST on 5/19/09
In an e-mail to the Justice French wrote, "While we performed a detailed review of other options, ... the President and the Board of Trustees believe that suspension of retirement contributions is the least objectionable and most equitable of the alternatives."
"We had a number of … principles that we wanted to try to uphold," Conrad said. "We wanted something to try and avoid layoffs. We wanted something that wouldn't only affect one part of the University, such as staff; we wanted something that at least to some extent had a degree of fairness and even social justice, and we wanted something that would have the least negative impact to people's lives." Since 80 percent of faculty and staff are part of the University retirement plan and the 20 percent who are not are generally the lowest-paid members of faculty and staff, the suspension of retirement contributions option "had a kind of fairness to it," Conrad said. However, Conrad stressed that this plan will only be in effect for one year and is not a sustainable course of action.
The Faculty Budget Committee has no set plans for dealing with the remaining budget shortfall for fiscal 2010 mainly because it is not certain what the remaining deficit will be at the beginning of next year, according to Conrad. He said the committee has discussed possible options but that he was not at liberty to say what those options were.
Conrad said that the idea of suspending retirement benefits came from the larger University Budget Committee, of which he is the chair and which is comprised of both administrators and faculty. When weighing the options, this plan "seemed the least bad of unpleasant options," he said.
"In some ways, this was the most socially progressive [plan], since the best-paid faculty naturally get the highest benefits, and some of the worst-paid faculty turn out not to get benefits at all," Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS) said. "[The lowest-paid] have not elected to be part of this system, so … they lose nothing, which I think is what many of us would have wanted." He added, "Many of us understand that we are very lucky. … There are a lot of people who would like to be in our situation."
"We had a number of … principles that we wanted to try to uphold," Conrad said. "We wanted something to try and avoid layoffs. We wanted something that wouldn't only affect one part of the University, such as staff; we wanted something that at least to some extent had a degree of fairness and even social justice, and we wanted something that would have the least negative impact to people's lives." Since 80 percent of faculty and staff are part of the University retirement plan and the 20 percent who are not are generally the lowest-paid members of faculty and staff, the suspension of retirement contributions option "had a kind of fairness to it," Conrad said. However, Conrad stressed that this plan will only be in effect for one year and is not a sustainable course of action.
The Faculty Budget Committee has no set plans for dealing with the remaining budget shortfall for fiscal 2010 mainly because it is not certain what the remaining deficit will be at the beginning of next year, according to Conrad. He said the committee has discussed possible options but that he was not at liberty to say what those options were.
Conrad said that the idea of suspending retirement benefits came from the larger University Budget Committee, of which he is the chair and which is comprised of both administrators and faculty. When weighing the options, this plan "seemed the least bad of unpleasant options," he said.
"In some ways, this was the most socially progressive [plan], since the best-paid faculty naturally get the highest benefits, and some of the worst-paid faculty turn out not to get benefits at all," Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS) said. "[The lowest-paid] have not elected to be part of this system, so … they lose nothing, which I think is what many of us would have wanted." He added, "Many of us understand that we are very lucky. … There are a lot of people who would like to be in our situation."
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 5
Bernadette Brooten
posted 5/19/09 @ 10:39 PM EST
The Justice quotes me incorrectly. As I stated to a Justice reporter as I left the faculty meeting, I believe that this move is necessary, owing to the dire financial circumstances of the University. (Continued…)
Fire Jehuda
posted 5/24/09 @ 7:18 PM EST
I bet Jehuda isn't losing any money from his pension. It's time for the Trustees to fire Jehuda Reinharz and to find an individual who actually cares about the students and faculty. (Continued…)
Dev Singer
posted 5/28/09 @ 10:46 AM EST
While I have never taken an economics class nor do I have any particular understanding of the way retirement funds work, I have to express a large amount of shock at the poster above me who wrote "Fire Jehuda. (Continued…)
Morna Lyles
posted 7/09/09 @ 11:39 AM EST
Peter French, Chief Operating Officer for Brandeis (and coincidentally now retiring) is responsible for the entire mess. Jehuda is Peter's little boy and when Peter says go raise me more money for my dorm project, my science center project, and my mismanaged IT staff -- Jehuda goes and kisses Shapiro backside. (Continued…)
Post a Comment