The chancellor has issued her proposals for cutting employee benefits. The proposal cuts the contributions to TIAA-CREF (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, College Retirement Equities Fund), raises the cost of the health care program and imposes a charge for using the tuition benefit program. Three matters are important about this proposal:

First, while the proposal consistently uses the term ‘sustainable,’ it is important to note that it is impossible to judge whether what now exists is unsustainable and whether the changes are sustainable. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee for the last 18 months, I note the following. Despite repeated requests, this proposal was never treated as a budget issue. The committee requested that there be a systematic review of how fast costs were rising and what problem increases presented to the university. There were also requests for detailed comparisons with other universities. There was no response to those requests. The committee asked that any changes be considered in terms of the entire budget and where else savings could be achieved. Is the cost of administration growing too rapidly and might savings be achieved there? Do we still need to give the athletic department an $8 million subsidy? Are there units on campus that are being subsidized (the Burton Blatt Institute?) that we could stop subsidizing? There was no response to the request to consider trade-offs within the budget. Whether Syracuse University needs to cut its benefits has never been established, at least to the Budget Committee. We may or may not need these changes.

Second, the process was specifically structured to avoid budget trade-off questions. The process began with a presumption that a net of $3 million needed to be cut. Where that figure came from is unknown. The process was tightly controlled so only cuts would be considered. The senate budget representative was prohibited from telling the Senate Budget Committee what was being considered. Documents providing facts, assuming they exist, could not be shared with us. There are no supporting documents accompanying the proposal. This was a process designed not to have open discussion but to make sure the desired outcome was achieved.

Third, the proposal repeatedly refers to ‘values,’ and they deserve some consideration. The values expressed are ones some members of the Budget Committee expressed doubts about. The proposal cuts $7.1 million in benefits (though there is no estimate of the revenue derived from employees paying a co-pay to send their children here) and then uses $4.1 million to provide some additional benefits. Among several changes we end up with two important expressions of ‘values.’ If you are married to someone of the opposite sex you will pay higher premiums than before. If you decide not to marry someone of the opposite sex but live with them, your partner will now be eligible for health insurance. We cut some to reward others. If you are a resident of the city and your child qualifies under Say Yes, you can go to SU for free. Indeed, last year, some city residents made more than $200,000 last year and sent their children to SU for free. If you are an employee of SU who makes $60,000 a year, you now pay 5 percent of SU’s tuition or at least $1,682. These are some interesting values and they deserve discussion.

Jeff Stonecash

Politcal science professor