In addition to the limited criticism of the1994 review process, the report critiques thefindings of the original review committee.

Most of the committee's concerns center aroundfears that the reduction in pension contributionsand the changes in post-retirement health benefitscould encourage employees to postpone retirement.

"We have seen it argued that, by encouraging`estate-building' (accumulating wealth throughcontinued employment and the compounding ofpension contributions), the faculty pensionprogram actually dissuades faculty and staff fromretiring," the report says. "We are notpersuaded."

In fact, the committee says reducing pensioncontributions, rather than maintaining currentlevels, would discourage retirement.

"We cannot envision that a decline in pensionswould make it easier for faculty to make thedecision to retire," the report continues.

The committee found, according to the report,that the decision to reduce pension contributionswas made for purely financial reasons--reasons thereport refutes.

"The University's costs for faculty pensions,then, are not an appreciable source of the upwardpressure on the fringe rate that initiallyprompted the benefits review," the report says.

The committee anticipates a temporary reductionin salary increases in order to neutralize thecost of maintaining the current level of pensioncontributions, which are tax-exempt.

"We think that the change would be to thelong-run advantage of most faculty members becauseof the tax-preferred treatment accorded tocontributions to pension funds," the report says.

The committee also expresses concern thatchanges in post-retirement health benefits,including capping University contributions at the1999 levels, would lead to dramatic increases inpersonal costs during retirement to formeremployees.

"The University is better able than individualsto assume risks associated with providingpost-retirement health coverage," the reportasserts.

"Clearly, one reasonable way for prudentfaculty and staff members to adjust to thehigher-than-anticipated and uncertain future costsof post-retirement health insurance coverage wouldbe delay their retirement dates," the report says."Surely many, if not most, faculty and staff willbe sorely tempted to do this."

The report concludes by recommendingUniversity-wide deliberations on post-retirementhealth benefits and a "softening" or eliminationof the cap on contributions