University Governance
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RETIREES’ RIGHTS AND BENEFITS FOR FY08 STANDING CHARGES
1. Promote all appropriate means of communication with retirees, with special emphasis on seeking information from them about their needs and concerns. (ongoing)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
CRRB recommends that “all appropriate means of communication with retirees” become an accountable responsibility of the Chancellor’s office. We make this recommendation for the following reasons:
a)Retirees comprise an important constituency of the University and should be accorded official attention commensurate with their status. The office of Chancellor seems to be the appropriate level from which such attention might flow.
b)“Official University attention to retirees” seems at present to be less focused and regular than it should be in order to be of mutual, maximum benefit to the University and to retirees.
c.A single office charged with responsibility for “promoting [and maintaining] all appropriate means of communication with retirees . . .” would be more likely to maintain effective communication with retirees than would a SenEx committee comprised, in this instance, largely of retirees.
CRRB also recommends that an “exit survey” be given to all retirees shortly after retirement—possibly a month or so following—asking about such as the following: 1)How was your KU experience overall? 2)Was assistance provided by HR helpful? We also recommend that a further follow-up be administered approximately one year following retirement, and: that follow-up on the surveys be added to CRRB’s charges. By way of adding further possible improvement to “promoting all appropriate means of communication . . . “, CRRB recommends that SenEx discuss the merits of adding an ex officio representative from the Provost’s office to CRRB. If this is deemed beneficial, steps should be taken to make the ex officio addition.
2. Maintain communication with the Endacott Society (particularly the chair of the Society’s Benefits Committee). (ongoing)
RECOMMENDATIONS:CRRB again recommends that the Office of the Chancellor assume responsibility for this function, relying upon the good efforts of a single individual in the Chancellor’s Office who will communicate—monthly, say—with the chair of the Endacott Society’s Benefits Committee for purposes of hearing and initiating appropriate action in response to concerns raised in the regular exchange. This communication shall be in a medium mutually satisfactory to the respective parties—e-mail, land mail, telephone, face-to-face—and in such form that a written record of the communication and actions taken thereto will be regularly maintained. The rationale for this recommendation: If the University shares the sense of CRRB that retirees comprise an important sector of the University’s constituency, it seems reasonable that “the University” assume responsibility for seeing that retirees’ needs and interests are attended to by “the University”.
CRRB further recommends that the chairperson of CRRB shall maintain effective liaison with the Endacott Society and that Governance provide the Endacott Society with minutes and other documents having relevance for Endacott Society members.
3. Advise the Department of Human Resources and the Office of the Provost that they shall act affirmatively and responsibly on issues affecting the maintenance of information about retirees (e.g., about maintenance of up to date mailing lists). (ongoing)
The Committee’s anecdotal sense suggests that “maintenance of information about retirees” is in “reasonably good shape”. This sense arises primarily from the success of the Survey of Retirees conducted this year. It became apparent that in some few cases the records apparently indicate that the spouse of the retiree rather than the retiree was the recipient of the survey mailing. However, corrections were made in those cases as the misidentification became apparent. It also came to the Committee’s attention that a sort of “Aloha Basket” would be both helpful to and appreciated by retirees. This basket, a counterpart of the “welcome wagon basket” would contain “everything the retiree needs to know about starting and maintaining retirement in a satisfying and thorough manner”. That is, information about insurance, supplementary insurance, tickets to events (including details on availability, how many, how/where to pick up, and so forth). It would be of great benefit to devise a means by which retirees who move from the Lawrence community could be effectively kept in touch with the University and activities of interest to retirees. The CRRB members also believe it would be of benefit to establish a chat room where retirees could engage in mutually interesting exchanges of information. A “retirees” category should be added to University and HR websites with links to the Retirees’ Handbook.
CRRB also wants to strongly encourage SenEx to evaluate the adequacy of funding provided by the University for the Governance office. Given that adequate funds were not available to provide return postage for the conduct of the survey of retirees, our sense as a committee is that funding of Governance is inadequate. It is probably not necessary to point out that charging retirees for providing return postage on a Governance- and by reference, University-sponsored survey, is not the most sophisticated of all possible ways to conduct business in a credible manner.
4. Seek feedback from retirees and University offices about the Retirees Handbook and work with the staff to ensure that it remains current.
CRRB members have heard that a new assistant has joined the Provost’s office staff. This person might be of significant help in maintaining the Retirees’Handbook. It should be noted that communication regarding handbook changes is good at present, but retirees did seem to be “variably aware” of the existence of the handbook, gaining access to it, and so forth. It might be helpful to make a current copy of the handbook part of an “Aloha Basket” mentioned earlier.
SPECIFIC CHARGE
1. Survey retirees about interest in access to campus office and or research space and other resources that would promote effective and meaningful participation by retirees in the life of the University.
FY 2008 Final Report of the Committee on Retirees’ Rights and Benefits
The members of CRRB individually reviewed the quantified results of the Survey of Retirees and read retirees’ comments. The committee met on March 28, 2008 and agree that the following conclusions are supported by the results of the survey.
Retirees do not have a meaningful feeling of affiliation with KU. They express especially acrimonious opinions about being charged for parking. There is also a palpable theme in the comments suggesting that retirees do not view themselves as valued or appreciated by the university once they’ve retired; except, as several mentioned, as sources of potential donations/bequests.
We do not have a useful or confident sense at this point about how valuable a list of conjectures regarding “University Treatment of Retirees” might be. One question that might possibly arise for governance has to do with where retirees “fit” in the university’s overall organizational scheme. In other words, is there any university unit, from HR to the Chancellor’s office or Provost’s office that is clearly and specifically charged with and responsible for effective liaison with retirees? CRRB could envision several possibilities, depending on the answer to the prior question. Those possibilities would range from returning to a dependable policy/practice of FREE parking to establishing an on-line “chat room” for retirees where their questions about matters of concern could be shared and addressed.The Endacott Society might be a possible agency for initiating something like that.
It is the sense of the Committee, though, that “the university”, as a matter of routine expectation and practice, should act toward retirees in ways that clearly and consistently convey appreciation for past service and courteous treatment in all matters of concern and interest to the retiree community. The tenor of the Survey results together with respondent comments suggests that a successful effort for improvement in this arena would be beneficial for all parties.
The CRRB members also see some potentially significant benefits for the University if it were to develop explicit, visible means by which retirees who wish to remain active in their academic pursuits could do so. The angry undertone in some of the comments about being “kicked out [of office space] in favor of storage” simply does not fall on the ear as something even a modestly generous institution would entertain, much less do. It seems the benefits that would result from visibly and authentically appreciating and recognizing retirees would clearly outstrip what seems to be viewed by some as being set adrift on an ice floe to die. The analogy may be a bit stretched, but not unimaginably.
Carrie Towns in OIRP with able assistance from Kathy Reed in the Governance Office put the final document together. The members of CRRB are grateful for their competent work.
Respectfully Submitted,
Chair: George Crawford, Curriculum & Teaching (2010)
Lois Greene, Design (2008)
Marilyn Stokstad, Professor Emeritus, History of Art (2009)
Sandra Wick, Associate Director, Honors Program, Unclassified staff (2008)
Fred McElhanie, retired Unclassified staff (2008)
Linda Gerdes, Student Financial Aid, Univ. Support Staff, (2009)
Jeanne Torneden , Retired, Univ. Support Staff, (2008)