For much of the last year, the leaders of Harvard's largest union and University administrators waged a fierce battle across Massachusetts Avenue.
The heads of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW), located in Harvard Square, and then-Provost Jerry R. Green, from his Memorial Hall office traded insults and accusations as the administration refused to allow union representatives to sit on a task force reviewing the University's benefits.
The task force, first chaired by Green and then by Vice President for Administration Sally H. Zeckhauser, consisted of 10 highly-placed administrators. With the help of consulting firm Towers Perrin, the committee spent nearly a year evaluating the University's benefits structure, periodically updating the University's top brass.
In a report released earlier this month, nearly six months late, the task force recommended a series of changes to the faculty and staff fringe benefits program, which includes health insurance and pension.
In the end, the union's members are not going to be affected by the changes. Union leaders are vowing to protect their interests in negotiations this spring.
Today, this battle has an additional front, since the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) joined the fray. Members of the FAS, who assumed they would be able to vote on the changes and sat quietly by during the review process, are now concerned about decreases in future income. They say that they, too, were excluded from the process.
At yesterday's full faculty meeting, irate professors spent an hour and a half describing the harmful effects of pension deduction and imploring the administration to reconsider the changes.
At times Rudenstine appeared tired and upset by the faculty attacks.
The upshot is that the benefits adjustment seems to have split the University into two camps: the administration which formulated and approved the changes, and the people who have to live with them.
And the rift seems to be widening.
Timeline
In the spring of 1993, rising health care costs and improved portfolio performance prompted the central administration to launch a review of the University's 20-year-old benefits program.
At that time, President Neil L. Rudenstine, Green and the deans requested a review to address a $10 million structural deficit in the employee fringe benefit pool.
The benefits pool is an internal University bank account. Deposits are made as a part of faculty and staff salaries.
Health and pension benefits are then paid out of this fund. Although a constant flow of funds is being deposited, the amount spent fluctuates annually, depending on the demographic mix of University employees, the cost of health care "You can't tell what benefits are going to cost," a source close to the task force says. "This bank account was running short consistently." The result is a $52 million cumulative deficit, administrators say. Currently the benefits pool is about $150 million. Health, pension and Social Security costs absorb about 90 percent of these funds. More than $40 million is spent each year to insure some 13,000 employees covered by Harvard's seven health plans. The University's benefits program had not been comprehensively overhauled since 1973, when the University, prompted by changes in national Social Security legislation, announced changes to its retirement plans. "The benefits programs were a hodge-podge," says Hale Champion, the University's first vice president for finance, who led the review. "They'd been put together by the treasurer who was a member of the Corporation and not an employee of Harvard." The review was conducted by a subcommittee of the now-defunct University Benefits Committee. Both committees involved a mix of faculty and administrators. In October 1993, Rudenstine established the most recent task force, made up exclusively of University administrators and originally chaired by Green. Deans appointed faculty members and exempt staff to form "advisory groups," which gave their input to the task force during an information gathering stage from November 1993 to January 1994. The task force was originally scheduled to released its findings in May. But the group did not make its preliminary recommendations until June and its final recommendations until August. The Final Report of the Task Force on Benefits was published early this month, six months after the scheduled release date. HUCTW vs. Jerry Green The task force's work may have been delayed by the sudden departure of Green, who left the task force in April when he announced that he would be stepping down as provost. Leaders of HUCTW faced off against Green last fall, announcing their refusal to serve in an advisory role to the task force and demanding full participation in the review. The changes will not affect members of unions, except the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Hotel Restaurant Institutional Employees Union (Local 26), which have recently accepted contract extensions. But all the unions have been approached by administrators seeking to implement the changes, union leaders say. "I think they knew at some point early in the process that they would next propose this to the unions," says HUCTW President Donene Williams. The administration offered HUCTW, the University's largest collective bargaining unit, and the other unions what Green called "full partnership," the opportunity to join an advisory group or form their own. "We were very dissatisfied with the process that went on last year," says HUCTW director Bill Jaeger. "They were determined to have a process that we had no meaningful part in. It was almost like that was a main goal." In February, Green lashed out and accused the union leaders of being uncooperative. "I have talked to HUCTW, trying to implore them to join or form an advisory group," Green said at the time. "We're open to their input formally or informally at any time." But HUCTW President Donene Williams blasted Green, saying the advisory groups were playing little more than a token role in the benefits review. "The process that [Green] describes is not one that includes any sort of respectful partnership," Williams said in February. Williams and Jaeger stand by those statements today. Members of HUCTW, along with those of the six other Harvard-based unions, have steadfastly refused to consider accepting the changes until contract negotiations begin in the spring. "We have a legitimate reason to expect a deeper inclusion in the process than that," Jaeger says. "We're union, we're organized. Our co-workers voted to form a union and to insist on a more equal kind of partnership for deciding things like that." The non-union staff advisory committee which did eventually form was made up of 13 middle-level managers--assistant and associate deans, department administrators and directors. "[Advisory groups are] a favorite technique the administration uses to hold people at arm's length," says one HUCTW member and Kennedy School employee. "Their [day-to-day] concerns are a lot different from ours. We know of people with families who make hard decisions as it is about allocating money." In February, Green defended the advisory groups. He said he had "two feet" of files of data from the groups, which were meeting every few weeks. It is not clear from the report how many times those groups met. The Departure of Jerry Green In April, the University suddenly, and without explanation, announced that Green would leave his post as provost and return to teaching. Implicit in that, but never publicly stated, was the fact that Green, Harvard's first provost in four decades, would step down as head of the task force. "I got a letter saying that he was no longer going to be the chair of the task force and assigning me the task," Zeckhauser says. "Basically what was left was to convene some meetings and conclude the work." Green left under a cloud of speculation and disarray in the administration and questions about an apparent mismatch between a man and his mission. But the University has remained quiet in the seven months since the announcement. To this day, there has been no official, public explanation of the departure, which came so suddenly that some members of the Board of Overseers were notified by The Crimson that it was happening. What is clear is that when Green left his Mass Hall office, he left the task force behind. His name is not once mentioned in the final report, not even under the list of task force members. The only sentence that could possibly allude to Green reads, "The task force recommendations were approved by...the University Provost." Apparently, however, Green, who spearheaded the benefits review process, is not the provost referred to in the report. "[Green] clearly disagreed with the report, and he didn't sign it," says Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul. "Which University provost approved it?" According to a Human Resources spokesperson, the approval came from Kennedy School Dean Albert Carnesale, who took over the provost's office on July 1. "It's certainly not me," Green says. Although Green has refused to comment on his return to the Economics Department, he did write a memo to Rudenstine and Zeckhauser in June criticizing several of the changes. Green refused to comment on the contents of the June memo in an August interview, except to say, "I think the memo speaks for itself." In the memo, Green said the final results of the benefits review did not sufficiently take long-term factors into account. He called the one percent reduction in pension contributions "inefficient" and expressed disapproval of the linkage of health benefits to salary. "By violating the principle that all Harvard employees get the same health benefits we leave ourselves open to many counterproductive forces," he wrote. The memo also outlined several proposals which Green made to the task force but which did not appear as part of the final changes. Green wrote that he advocated the creation of a separate category for one adult with a child or children, an option which he said would cost noticeably less than the family benefit plan for two adults with any or no children. "Columbia did this. It's brilliant," Green says. "Insurance companies will lower the price if they're covering one adult instead of two. Children are very cheap." In an article this summer in Harvard Magazine, Green questioned the financial soundness of the plan. "At least $4 million a year is being wasted," he told the publication. The Faculty Uproar Meanwhile, back at University Hall, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Jeremy R. Knowles has had to deal with angry faculty. While Harvard's well-off, well-known faculty members would seem to have little in common with the people who make up its staff, the two groups do share one view: that the administration made decisions adversely affecting them without adequately making them a part of the process. And both these groups are furious. At last month's full Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting, Rudenstine presented the changes to an indignant gathering of professors. "There's a lot more interest in the report since October 18, than there was before," Paul says. "Rarely does the Faculty want to get this involved. I can only recall twice before, and one was the strike of 1969." Three professors said they thought the faculty advisory committee to the University-wide task force did not adequately solicit faculty opinion. "It was nice to see another group on campus, and especially another group that's as important and respected as the Faculty, saying some of the same things we've said all along," HUCTW's Williams says. "It was nice to see the Faculty had the same sense of betrayal our members and some of the other unionized members have had." The criticisms of the review process and the changes became so intense that, in an unprecedented move, Knowles appointed two professors to review the review. Frederick H. Abernathy, McKay professor of mechanical engineering and Richard E. Caves, Gund professor of economics and business, studied the benefits review process and reported their findings at a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences yesterday. In the report, released to the public last week, the professors criticized the administration for excluding faculty and for discounting the opinion of those faculty they did consult. "[The procedure] flew in the face of a tradition of consultation with the faculty in relation to benefits and total compensation," they wrote. The two professors faulted the administration for failing to consult adequately about the final changes with the faculty advisory group it established. "The Benefits Task Force's plan of action adduced general statements of concern and values from faculty and others, but it never contemplated seeking faculty comment on its detailed recommendations," Caves and Abernathy wrote. "Neither the Faculty Advisory Group nor the Faculty Council was informed of the exact options considered or recommended." Rudenstine admitted in the meeting yesterday that the review structure may have caused problems. "I agree there were flaws," he said. "The degree of consultation was much less than it should have been." Professor of History William E. Gienapp says he believes that this lack of consultation with faculty led to a solution which constitutes a decline in real income for faculty members. "The faculty I have talked to are all one way or the other, dismayed or even stronger," he says. "I feel this was simply a unilateral pay cut imposed on the faculty by the administration." Gienapp says professors should not have been excluded from the review process. "I could balance the budget in 10 minutes," he says. "Give me the red pen and absolute authority and some things would go." Yesterday, though, the Faculty's focus turned from the issue of consultation to the issue of actual changes. Caves and Abernathy concluded their report by recommending that Knowles create a Standing Benefits Review Committee, which would protect faculty members' future benefits. "Most faculty members, understandably, don't know too much about the benefits that they'll be getting," Caves says. "We thought a committee could serve as an early warning system for these things." Last week, the Faculty Council proposed that FAS create its own standing committee to monitor benefits. The resolution will be docketed for the December full faculty meeting. Yesterday, Rudenstine said there will likely be two benefits committee, one within the FAS and one University-wide. Professors asked that the committees review the changes, especially the pension reduction, and submit recommendations to the President and Fellows for consideration. "I cannot speak for the Corporation," Rudenstine said. "But I believe the Corporation would be sensitive and thoughtful and wish to hear the concerns of the faculty." He did emphasize that any faculty proposals would have to address the $10 million structural deficit. Paul and McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics Anthony G. Oettinger were scheduled to propose a vote at yesterday's meeting that would ask the Corporation to rescind two of the changes. But both professors withdrew their proposals after Rudenstine guaranteed faculty participation on the two standing committees. Some Effects The Faculty's insistence on participation is new. For much of the process they let the task force do its work and waited to be consulted. But when the Faculty finally did protest at their October meeting, the task force listened. The final report differs markedly from the preliminary copy some professors had at the meeting. Paul, who obtained a copy of the earlier version from a colleague, says he noticed the report's writers had changed the term "employees" to "faculty and staff." "It's a cosmetic change," Paul says. "It doesn't change their attitude. They are employers, and we are employees." Knowles has also appointed Administrative Dean Nancy R. Maull and Associate Dean for Human Resources Polly Price to evaluate the actual fiscal impact on faculty members the changes will have. "It's my responsibility as Dean of the FAS to be sure that however proper the decisions University-wide are,...each group is not improperly impacted by the changes," Knowles says. Although he cannot make changes to the benefits package, as dean of the Faculty, Knowles does have control over salary levels. The Faculty and the President The last time the University reviewed its benefits, in 1973, Derek C. Bok was just beginning is two-decade long tenure as Harvard's president. Following Bok's 1990 announcement that he would step down, administrators said that the then-president had usually proved willing to hear what protesters said. Most agreed that Bok's leadership style did much more to foster an atmosphere of communication as opposed to confrontation. That early approach can be seen in the choice of committee members for the 1972-3 University Benefits Committee: two lecturers and a professor in addition to administrators. And the subcommittee which was largely responsible for the 1973 review was chaired by a professor and included two other professors and one assistant dean. While Bok himself declined to comment, the contrast is apparent. "We also established a University wide committee that involved faculty members from each of the schools," former vice-president Champion says. "And the conclusions we arrived at were discussed with the interest groups," Champion says. "For instance, I remember going to at least one Faculty Council meeting and... meetings of the FAS to discuss where we were and what we were doing." But that was near the beginning of Bok's 20-year term. By the end of his tenure, many considered the former president a distant bureaucrat, The Crimson reported in 1992. In contrast, newcomer Rudenstine, upon his arrival, immediately began to foster the image of a down-to-earth populist. Today, only two years later, faculty members say Rudenstine, too, has become distant and disconnected from the faculty. "This is the first time we've had an all-administrative committee making decisions on matters which affect benefits," Paul says. "The Faculty doesn't have representation. That is dangerous." A favorite metaphor of the University administration has long been "every tub on its own bottom." In his effort to centralize University fundraising and administration, Rudenstine attempted to have a hand in every tub. But some critics say the University is still too decentralized for the president to have a tight grip on everything. "As the size of the administration grows...more and more delegation of authority to less conscientious and less able mid-level bureaucrats becomes necessary," writes one professor in response to a survey over the Internet. "In the case at hand, the people to whom the authority was delegated just plain blew it, and have managed to alienate the faculty in addition," he writes. Paul, who has been on the Harvard faculty for four decades, says he has recently noticed what he feels is a disturbing trend to exclude faculty from high-level decision making. "You have to understand what consulting is all about. If you don't tell them what you propose, you're not really consulting," he says. "It is quite clearly a change from the past."
Read more in News
Two House Agendas
