Committee on Retirement Options
Faculty Congress
Dear Colleague:
We write to inform you that we have been in continuing dialogue with Dr. Johannes toward possible revisions in Villanova’s “steady state” or fixed policy retirement program. If you continue reading we will present a summary of the existing plan. We will also describe proposals we have made: (1) a steady state phased reduction of teaching, and (2) an improved schedule of percentage “buyouts” that would revise the existing plan.
We also write to inform you of the presentation we made on January 30, 2007 to V.P.A.A. Johannes and the Council of Deans. This was in support of a “window” plan that would have replicated the 2001 plan (essentially, those 60 or older, with fifteen or more years of service, could receive 5% of salary for each year of service, with a cap at 200%). Dr. Johannes has already communicated to you concerning the rejection of this plan. We are not at this juncture presenting any analysis of that decision or the process leading to it. We are, however, sharing with you the representation we made, and its supporting documents. We believe that we made a strong case that our proposal would help advance the Strategic Plan of the University.
We welcome your questions and feedback on both the current proposals, and the January 30 case that was made.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Hones (Physics)
Nancy Sharts-Hopko (Nursing)
Gerard Jones (Mechanical Engineering)
Rodger Van Allen (Theology and Religious Studies)
Burke Ward (Marketing and Business Law)
Steady State Phased Reduction – Up to 4 Years
(Proposal)
May be initiated at age 61 or beyond. Must terminate not later than age 71. All four years not necessary.
Year |
|
Surplus |
1 |
½ time paid at 80% |
30% |
2 |
½ time paid at 80% |
30% |
3 |
½ time paid at 70% |
20% |
4 |
½ time paid at 70% |
20% |
|
|
100% |
Can shift to outright retirement with % payment reduced by % surplus accumulation. Thus, after year 1, one could choose full retirement and receive the other three years’ surplus of 70%, etc.
The phased-reduction plan initiates with the faculty member signing a legal agreement that they surrender their tenured position not later than the end of the fourth year. During the period of up to four years, they are full-time tenured faculty with all appropriate benefits.
Age |
% |
61 |
100 |
62 |
100 |
63 |
113 |
64 |
126 |
65 |
139 |
66 |
152 |
67 |
165* |
68 |
152 |
69 |
139 |
70 |
126 |
71 |
113 |
72 |
100 |
The 165% peak value and the values before and after it are subject to change based on the relative costs for this program. Those faculty older than the age of maximum benefit under the proposed plan would be deemed at the maximum age, in an initiating bridge to the proposed revised steady state plan.
Steady State Retirement
(Existing)
Age |
% |
61 |
90 |
62 |
80 |
63 |
70 |
64 |
60 |
65 |
50 |
66 |
40 |
67 |
30 |
68 |
20 |
69 |
10 |
Outline of Presentation
by the Faculty Congress Committee
on Retirement Options
Michael Hones (Physics)
Nancy Sharts-Hopko (Nursing)
Gerard Jones (Mechanical Engineering)
Rodger Van Allen (Theology and Religious Studies)
Burke Ward (Marketing and Business Law)
To
Dean James M. Danko, School of Business
Dean M. Louise Fitzpatrick, College of Nursing
Dean Kail C. Ellis, O.S.A. College of Arts and Sciences
Dean Gary Gabriele, College of Engineering
and
Dr. John R. Johannes, Vice-President Academic Affairs
January 30, 2007
Essential Argument
1. A significant infusion of fresh faculty energy and scholarly drive best serves the advancement and achievement of the Strategic Plan of the University.
2. The window plan presented by the designated committee of the Faulty Congress, with a projected yield of upwards of 35 percent of the 113 eligible faculty, is the best means to achieve this significant infusion of fresh faculty energy and scholarly drive.
3. Therefore, the committee’s window plan should be accepted.
More Specific Development of the Argument
1. The achievement of the ambitious and admirable Vision Statement portion of “Transforming Minds and Hearts, the Academic Strategic Plan, 2003-2010” will be facilitated by the acceptance of the proposed plan.
(a) Arts and Sciences will provide “excellence” at the “heart of the academic enterprise” and “promote growth in high-quality master’s and doctoral programs.”
(b) Villanova School of Business “will be recognized as the top Catholic undergraduate business program in the U.S.” and a “premier graduate business program.”
(c) Engineering “will be recognized as the leading Catholic engineering school in the nation, a benchmark for excellence, distinctiveness and innovation.”
(d) Nursing will be “recognized as one of the three leading Catholic schools of nursing in the U.S.
2. Acceptance of the proposed plan will open an estimated 38 tenure track positions and will notably assist the achievement of the Diversity Plan to which the University and Father President are publicly pledged.
(a) Goal three of the Academic Strategic Plan reads: “Recruit, support, and retain a talented and diverse, and caring faculty.” (Italics ours).
(b) We are making progress in some ways, but more is clearly needed. Surely we recall Father President’s Inaugural Address remarks about changing “Vanillanova.” At this juncture, however, there is, for example, no full-time tenure-track African-American professor in the Villanova School of Business, and only one in the College of Engineering.
(c) The Villanova Office of Multi-Cultural Affairs is strongly supportive of our proposed plan and Dr. Teresa A. Nance would be willing to accept an invitation to share her supportive perspective (cf., her supportive memo and the latest minority faculty statistics which are supplied).
3. Circumstances of the widely-praised “win-win” plan of 2001 are now present again. This is the same plan we have presented and are asking your acceptance of. It made sense then and it makes sense now.
(a) In 2001, there were 110 eligible faculty and the percentage of Villanova faculty 55 and older was 40 percent.
(b) In 2007, there are 113 eligible faculty and the percentage of Villanova faculty 55 and older is 40 percent.
(c) 54% of Villanova faculty are eligible for membership in the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
4. The “Implementation Analysis (December 1, 2006) of the Academic Strategic Plan, 2003-1010” describes faculty productivity as “strong” and progress as “ongoing” in increasing the quality and quantity of scholarly publications and extramural grants. But it seems more apt to describe the performance as rather static numerically. The acceptance of our proposal would very likely impact this situation and impel us forward in accord with the Strategic Vision and Plan.
(a) In 2001-2002, the number of papers presented at conferences by all faculty was 511; in 2005-2006 the number of papers presented at conferences by all faculty was 511; this, despite more underloads and greater funding for conference participation in the more recent years.
(b) The faculty publication of refereed papers in 2002-203 was 370; in 2005-2006, it was 357.
(c) The Implementation Analysis document of the Academic Strategic Plan notes the goal of doubling by 2011 the number of faculty submitting proposals for grants. Despite the hiring of a grant writer and growth in Villanova grant matching funding in recent years, the number of faculty submitting proposals for grants is static. In fiscal year 2000, 88 faculty submitted proposals, and in 2006, 88 faculty submitted proposals.
5. Dr. Johannes has clarified to us that “the decision taken by the deans and me does not turn on the finances or any other single item. We can always make the numbers work out financially, one way or another.” This is a helpful clarification, but we do anticipate that in the end it will work out advantageously.
(a) Whatever the replacement schedule hypothesized, we anticipate that the way it will work out de facto will be close to Mr. Sieber’s Scenario #5 model.
(b) If our assumption proves correct, at 35 percent of takers, the present value of the first five years of savings would be a positive $537,274.
6. Our proposal is both wise and gracious, and accords with Villanova’s traditional values.
(a) To be sure, there is an alternative “hardnosed” approach to this matter of faculty retirement. The “hardnosed” approach which we describe objectively, without any necessary local reference, goes, in its crude expression, like this: ‘Let them stare mortality in the face for awhile. They’ll eventually leave, one way or another, and it won’t cost a dime.’
(b) The alternative is something we, all of whom served on this committee six years ago, communicated repeatedly to our faculty colleagues: “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.”
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Hones (Physics)
Nancy Sharts-Hopko (Nursing)
Gerard Jones (Mechanical Engineering)
Rodger Van Allen (Theology and Religious Studies)
Burke Ward (Marketing and Business Law)
March 15, 2007
Retirement Committee