For the good and enlightenment of retirees
From Marie Soo Hoo
DON’T FORGET the VCCCDRA BBQ/Beach Party on Tuesday, October 1. Click here to see attached flyer for details. IF YOU HAVE NOT SENT IN YOUR CHECKS YOU CAN PAY AT THE DOOR.
CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS
Volunteers are needed to assist at our check-in tables, with the sale of raffle tickets & sales of tickets for drinks that are not included with meals. Any one able to assist with setup around 10 a.m. that morning is more than welcome!
Hope to see all of you there!.
Marie Soo Hoo
From Gary Johnson, Chair of the VCCCDRA Benefits Committee
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019, the Chancellor and Katy Lyon (District Benefits Analyst) came to our Executive Board Meeting to discuss and clarify District proposed changes to our benefits. We discussed the issue of Dual Coverage Benefit changes, and the Chancellor clarified as follows:
Although it is good news to hear that our individual benefit rights will be maintained, loss of coordinated benefits could result in substantial financial impact for Dual Coverage retirees.
We will continue to raise this issue with the District and secure written commitment to item l), and challenge or find a viable alternative to the loss of coordinated benefits as in item 2).
REMINDER: Please provide your information as requested in the post of September 24, 2019. Use this link to read that particular post.
This is the LINK for the contribution form.
From Rene Rodriguez, President, VCCCDRA
SUBJECT: Last Call for Those Wishing to Make a Contribution to Become a Founding Member of the Don B. Medley Scholarship
Dear VCCCDRA Retirees,
In mid-October, circa October 15, we will be writing a check to the Ventura County Community Foundation (VCCF) for all receipts of contributions made by retirees for the VCCCDRA Sponsored Don B. Medley Scholarship.
This is one last call for those wishing to make a contribution to become a founding member of this scholarship. (Please use the link for the contribution form provided at the beginning of this post.)
From the reports that Jim Rivera from the VCCF has made to me of contributions made directly to the VCCF combined with the contributions that I have received todate, the total amount is enough now to establish a $1,000 annually endowed scholarship. Please note that all contributors will be receiving a letter directly from the VCCF from information that I will be providing to Jim, acknowledging a retiree’s contribution for tax purposes.
I am humbled by the generosity of fellow retirees and how quickly we were able to raise the necessary funds, actually doubling the amount of our original goal. Almost half of the retirees contacted have made a contribution, and the contribution amounts have varied from $20 to $5,000 (neither is a typo). This just exemplifies that those who contributed gave what they could.
My sincerest congratulations to all retirees who have been able to make a contribution for your grandiose support of the VCCCDRA’s first scholarship.
Rene G. Rodriguez
President, VCCCDRA
Regarding the Proposed CalPERS Choice Supplemental Plan for Retirees
My name is Rene Rodriguez, president of the Ventura County Community College District Retiree’s Association.
I understand that the Board has called this emergency meeting to decide on whether to declare an impasse in negotiations with the AFT.
This seems quite abrupt to retirees, since the Exec Board of the retirees only first met with the Chancellor on the subject of healthcare on July 15, or about two months ago. We considered that meeting an informational meeting on a proposal that the Chancellor was favoring involving CalPERS.
However, on September 5, just 14 days ago, retirees received an email from the Chancellor, stating more definitely, that the District was proposing entering into an agreement with CalPERS to purchase medical benefits in July of 2020. And through this same email, we learned that this change would require
The leadership of the Retirees’ Association requested information regarding CalPERS, before it could adequately notify retirees about what this proposal was about, and we never received all of the requested information, even though the Chancellor promised it to us.
The Board of Trustees cannot possibly agree that retirees have had adequate time to study and digest a major change in their health benefits, particularly when not all the requested materials have been provided to give the Retirees’ Association leadership adequate time to inform the general membership about this impending change.
However, the Retirees’ Association leadership has learned enough from the materials received thus far, that a change to CalPERS would necessitate the District to breach contract and settlement agreement language, namely,
Retirees were once the exceptional employees that you have come to expect of all faculty, classified and administrative staff, who have helped make the three colleges and this District the premier institutions that they are today. We deserve the same consideration now, as retirees, that the Board once accorded us as active employees.
Thank you.
From Gary Johnson, Chair of the VCCCDRA Benefits Committee
09/18/2019
ATTENTION: Couples who receive Dual District Benefit Coverage (Couples in one household who both have earned their own District benefits)
The District intention is to contract with CalPERS to provide future District Benefits. This change of benefits would eliminate Dual District Benefit Coverage.
CalPERS is not permitted to recognize two members of a household, each earning and receiving separate District coverage. CalPERS cannot continue to provide them separate coverage. CalPERS cannot provide the dual coverage such District couples now receive and cannot provide the “coordination of coverage” benefits they now receive. Instead, CalPERS forces a couple, each entitled to lifetime healthcare benefits, to decide which of them will have primary coverage and force the other to absorb nullification of a fundamentally important retiree benefit they have a contractual right to.
We assume the District will try to provide some compensation for the loss of the second coverage and, upon the death of the designated couple member, will automatically reinstate the surviving member to full primary coverage position. However, the District has not proposed either of these actions yet. There are 48 couples who would be affected by such a change and the projected savings to the District could be in the neighborhood of $500,000 annually, which obviously motivates them to consider CalPERS.
The couple members are presumably spread across all work locations, employment designations, and may be actively employed or retired. Their members extend beyond SEIU or AFT representation and they share a common interest in dual coverage.
We need to identify the 48 couples in order for them to potentially communicate and work with one another, should the District move toward contracting with CalPERS. SEIU and AFT have also been asked to identify couples.
To that potential end, please email the following information to Gary Johnson at freevcnet@aol.com:
Since we can’t get this information from the District, we really appreciate your help. Please spread the word and encourage all dual covered couples you know to respond, and provide the Retirees Association with the names of any Dual Coverage couples you are aware of.
Again, please email the requested information, listed above to: Gary Johnson at freevcnet@aol.com
Thank you.
TO: Chancellor Greg Gillespie, and Board Trustee members Dianne McKay, Larry Kennedy, Bernardo Perez, Gabriela Torres, and Josh Chancer.
Speaker: Gary Johnson, VCCCD Retiree Association Benefits Chair (and past President) (Ventura College, 37 ½ years, American History teacher, and Dean, Social Sciences and Humanities, 25 years)
Retiree Health Benefits:
What I have to say is for the Chancellor, Board members, and AFT and SEIU leadership and membership. You are all responsible to retirees for what happens to District retiree benefits.
The Chancellor has taken a hard line in articulating to AFT, SEIU and retirees his intent to contract with CalPERS as the new administrator for District health care benefits. Three times he has told retiree leadership that the district’s attorney has told him he can move forward with a CalPERS benefits contract despite long standing negotiated contract and settlement agreement language which we believe stands firmly in his way.
We are deeply concerned about the content of health benefit coverages and especially the policies and practices of how they are applied by providers. The content of CalPERS’ benefits plans was not more than superficially the focus of last academic year’s investigation of possible money saving options for providing benefits. A detailed study and understanding of the plans – by all affected parties – must be an integral part of the decision making process regarding choosing or not choosing CalPERS.
However, first the primary and more basic question has to do with what negotiated contract and settlement agreement language commits the District to concerning retiree benefits and how CalPERS governing policies make it impossible for CalPERS to deliver the District commitment to retirees.
Since 1977, when contracts were first negotiated under California law, there have been thirteen contracts negotiated between the District and faculty and the District and classified staff. During this forty three year period every contract contains the same mutually agreed to commitment to retiree benefits for faculty hired before July 1, 1990 and classified hired before July 24, 1990. The same retiree benefit language rolls over and over again through the thirteen subsequent contracts. When all employees were provided the same benefits plan the language stated contract faculty/ classified members who are employed by the District at the time of retirement shall be retained on the District’s existing group plans (initially medical and dental with vision added in 1979) with premiums paid by the District. When separate plans were provided for each employee union it followed that retirees would receive the same plan coverage as their respective employment group at the time of retirement. The retirees employed before the designated dates in 1990 have come to be labeled Tier I retirees. In every contract Tier I retirees are promised the same benefit as their respective active employee counterparts. Nowhere in association with Tier I retirees is there contract language that mentions Medicare or a Medicare supplemental plan or the word “comparable” in connection to District negotiated and agreed to Tier I contract language. Tier I retirees are to receive the same plan coverages as active employees.
On December 10, 1991 the District adopted a Managers Policy and Operations Manual following much of the format of the union negotiated contracts and authorizing the formation of a District wide managers association which did not have negotiating authorization but did have significant influence through collective persuasion. The Manual under Article VI “Health and Welfare Benefits” reiterated the commitment provided faculty and classified retirees that they would receive the same benefits in retirement as active employees:
“The District will provide health and welfare benefits coverage for management personnel and their dependents under existing plans…”
(B) “Managers retiring from the District shall be maintained on the District’s existing group medical, dental, and vision policies with premiums paid by the District…”
Commitment to Tier I retirees receiving the same benefits as active employees– without debate and with mutual understanding as it being an established agreement – is again reiterated in the 2010 Settlement agreement between 455 retirees and the District. When specifically referencing fundamental elements of the District plan expected to be included in retiree plans, Settlement language describes them in relationship to “offered by the District to active employees”, “The District provides active employees”, and “provided to active employees”.
Under the section heading “Enrollment in the same medical benefit plan as active employees” language could not be more explicitly clear:
“Each eligible person in the settlement class shall be entitled to enroll in any one medical benefit plan, and any one dental plan, and any one vision plan provided by the District to active employees…”
In the 1980’s the State Community College Chancellor’s Office cautioned college districts about the long term financial consequences of unfunded retiree benefit promises. With the July 1990 contracts the District and the unions negotiated a second tier of retiree benefit provisions (Tier II). All parties agreed that Tier I benefit promises were locked in and the language in every subsequent contract rolls over the commitment in the same language over to the present. Tier I retirees will receive the same health benefits as active employees.
To save money in the future, Tier II retirees are not offered the same benefits as active employees, but “shall receive District provided coverage to the age sixty-five (65) at which time the retiree’s medical care plan shall be replaced by Medicare and a Medicare supplemental plan which provides comparable benefits and is provided and paid for by the District. Dental and vision will continue to be provided.” This represents a distinct departure from the commitment made to Tier I retirees.
Again, to save further money into the future the District and the unions agreed to close the door on the Tier II retirement commitment in 2001 and add a third tier retirement commitment. Tier III retirees will continue to be covered by the active employee plan until age 65, and at that time they are on their own with the provision that they can buy into the District plan if they choose.
CalPERS:
With the above three tiered commitments established, now to CalPERS. CalPERS is authorized to provide public employees health care benefits under the authority of the “Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act Regulations”:
As an aside, there is some irony in the District using the absence of any Tier I Medicare requirements to fend off the Anthem Blue Cross recent effort to require Tier I retirees to sign up for Medicare Part B or lose 80% of their District Anthem coverage, and at the same time say that by June 30, 2020 Tier I retirees will be required to have Medicare Part B so the District can contract with CalPERS. “No Medicare requirement” means “No Medicare requirement”.
Finally, in the interest of mutual transparency the Retiree Association requests the Board of Trustees to have the Chancellor share with the retirees and both unions what logic and legal arguments it intends to employ to abrogate all previous contract and settlement language and
(l) force Tier I retirees to enroll in Medicare, and
(2) force Tier I retirees to settle for Medicare and a Medicare supplement instead of the benefit plans active employees receive
Presentation to the VCCCD Board of Trustees
By Rene G. Rodriguez,
VCCCD Retirees’ Association President
September 10, 2019
Regarding Chancellor Greg Gillespie’s Health Benefits Proposal for VCCCD Retirees
My name is Rene Rodriguez. I am the president of the Ventura County Community College District Retiree’s Association.
I worked for the college district for 34 years, as a faculty member, as an institutional researcher for the district office, as a dean on all three campuses, and as a Vice President of Business Services at Ventura College and at Oxnard College.
To date, my wife Angela and I have been enjoying grade “A” health benefits for almost 50 years from the Ventura County Community College District. This excellent coverage was maintained throughout the years through negotiations with the bargaining units, and when necessary, the foregoing of pay raises. There have been a few glitches now and then, but the College District has always served the needs of active employees and retirees when they needed help regarding their coverage.
Now it seems that in one fell swoop, Chancellor Gillespie wants to replace the excellent health coverage that all active employees and retirees have enjoyed all these years, with the worst possible insurance coverage one can imagine, for a one-time savings of 10 to 12 million dollars.
Because of the limited time I have to make a presentation, I will first focus on the most outrageous and disturbing part of the plan that the Chancellor is proposing for retirees.
The part that I am referring to is under the heading of “Important Information” in the PERS Choice Supplemental Plan and reads as follows:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
“There is no vested right to receive any particular benefit set forth in the Plan. Plan benefits may be modified. Any modified benefit (such as the elimination of a particular benefit or an increase in the Member’s Copayment) applies to services or supplies furnished on or after the effective date of the modification.”
How could any sane person consider accepting an insurance policy that contains such a paragraph, that literally states that the plan you signed up for, “may be modified”, at any time, for any reason, at the discretion of CalPERS, which changes apply “on or after the effective date of the modification.”
THIS PARAGRAPH ALONE WOULD NEVER ALLOW ME TO CONSIDER SUCH A PLAN. THROUGH THIS PARAGRAPH ALONE, CALPERS IS TELLING US THAT THE PLAN IN OUR HANDS IS A FICTION, AND THAT ANY BENEFIT PROVIDED IN THAT PLAN MAY BE ELIMINATED OR HAVE ITS COPAYMENT INCREASED AT THE DISCRETION OF CALPERS.
With this unilateral control that CalPERS has over its health plans, neither the District office, nor its health broker Burnham, could interfere with such decisions. Only clients and their representative would have a right to go through a lengthy, exhausting and laborious process, which would most likely be to no avail. Since CalPERS is self-insured, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the State Commisioner of Insurance, and it can do whatever it pleases.
Secondly, I would like to mention two provisions that would affect me personally.
At retirement, Tier I employees, to which group I belong, are entitled to lifetime healthcare benefits.
Also, the settlement agreement reached by the district and the VCCCD Retirees’ Association in 2010 states that any retiree that is part of the settlement class, upon reaching the age of 80, that the retiree will be entitled to “lock in” the provisions found in the district health plan in effect at that time. I am part of that settlement class, and when I turn 80 next January, I will be entitled to the health plan provisions equivalent to those provided in the current Anthem Blue Cross plan.
I have already mentioned one difference above, the most egregious one, where CalPERS can make changes to the health plan willy-nilly at its own discretion. The current plan that I have under Anthem Blue Cross cannot make such changes.
I will mention two other important provisions in the CalPERS Choice plan that differs greatly from my current Anthem Blue Cross plan.
However, my cardiologist asked me to stop taking the statin drug that I had been taking for several years because one of the rare side-affects is the weakening of muscles. There is a new drug that had come out called Repatha with which he replaced the statin drug I was taking. This new drug has brought all my numbers to a normal range, and Anthem Blue Cross pays for Repatha including a copayment from me.
CalPERS Choice will not pay for this drug. Under “General Exclusions”, the CalPERS plan lists the following exclusion:
“Self-injectable drugs.
Injectable drugs which are self-administered by the subcutaneous route (under the skin) by the patient or Family Member. Drugs with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling for self-administration. Hypodermic syringes and/or needles when dispensed for use with self-injectable drugs or medications.”
Repatha is a “self-injectable” drug, and CalPERS Choice will not pay for it, making CalPERS Choice nowhere equivalent to our current Anthem Blue Cross plan.
2. Starting about five years ago, I got my first hearing aid. Our current plan under Anthem Blue Cross pays 80% of costs, and I pay 20% of the costs. CalPERS Choice pays $1000 for a hearing aid. My first hearing aid cost $5,000. Anthem Blue Cross paid $4,000 and I paid $1,000. Since CalPERS only pays $1,000, I would have had to pay $4,000. With CalPERS, the cost burden would be reversed: I would pay 80% of the cost, and CalPERS would pay 20% of the cost.
Once again, CalPERS Choice can hardly be considered anywhere close to being equivalent to the Anthem Blue Cross plan that we have now.
There are many other important reasons why CalPERS should not be given any consideration at all. I only mention three due to time constraints, and on this basis alone, I would highly recommend to the Board that the Chancellor and the bargaining units find something that can seriously be considered by active employees and retirees.
I would also like to thank Chancellor Greg Gillespie for including representatives from the Retirees’ Association in the District Health Benefits Committee, which has helped keep retirees apprised of health benefit changes under consideration, and from whom the district has benefited because of the retirees’ long history and knowledge of district and healthcare issues.
Thank you.
by Gary Johnson, Chair of the VCCCDRA Benefits Committee:
WHO ARE THE VCCCD RETIREES?
* Oldest retiree is 101 (living outside the U.S.)
* 38 are 91 or older
* 70 are between 86 and 90
* 60 are between 81 and 83
* 143 are between 76 and 80
From Rene Rodriguez, VCCCDRA President
Dear VCCCDRA Retirees,
Gary Johnson has just informed me that the District negotiator, as a result of the meeting with the AFT last Friday, has gone to the Chancellor recommending that they go to impasse. It is now our understanding that the reason for the EMERGENCY Board of Trustees meeting this Thursday is to request of the Board that the District go to impasse with the AFT on the question of negotiating for healthcare benefits.
The Chancellor appears to be wanting to rush the District into imposing a Medicare/CalPERS health plan for active employees and a Medicare and CalPERS supplemental plan on retirees, thereby replacing the current Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser plans.
THE CHANCELLOR’S PROPOSAL IS FRAUGHT WITH LEGAL OBSTACLES, AND THE BOARD SHOULD NOT GRANT THE CHANCELLOR THE DESIRE TO GO TO IMPASSE. THE CHANCELLOR NEEDS TO CHANGE COURSE.
WE ARE ASKING ALL RETIREES ABLE TO ATTEND TO MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO ATTEND THIS MEETING ON THURSDAY, SEPT. 19, AT 6:30 PM, at 761 East Daily Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
There are many problems connected with the CalPERS plans that the Chancellor is promoting. We pointed out some of these problems at the September 10 Board of Trustees meeting.
The Chancellor is wrong in trying to pursue this course of action because the District will have to breach longstanding contractual agreements with the AFT and the SEIU, as well as breach the settlement agreement reached with retirees in 2010.
Presentations at this EMERGENCY Board of Trustees meeting will try to help the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor understand how the District will be forced to breach contract language and settlement agreement language in order to move towards a CalPERS plan.
Presentations are limited to 3 minutes, and if you do not plan to make a presentation, you can still fill out a form and relinquish your time to someone who needs more time for their presentations. This helps the leadership have their say on behalf of retirees.
We will endeavor to publish individual presentations on here on the VCCCDRA blog as they become available.
Come early to assure yourselves a seat in the Boardroom. I hope to see as many of you as can make this meeting. Thank you.
Rene G. Rodriguez,
President, VCCCD Retirees’ Association
A CORRECTION to the post below and the similar email sent to the membership has been published. Please read the blog post on this critical and important issue. Use this link.
From Rene Rodgriquez, President, VCCCDRA
Dear VCCCDRA Retirees,
WE ARE ASKING ALL RETIREES ABLE TO ATTEND
TO MAKE A SPECIAL EFFORT
TO ATTEND THIS MEETING ON
THURSDAY, SEPT. 19, 2019 AT 6:30 PM,
at 761 East Daily Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010
There are many problems connected with the CalPERS plans that the Chancellor is promoting. We pointed out some of these problems at the September 10 Board of Trustees meeting.
The Chancellor is wrong in trying to pursue this course of action because the District will have to breach longstanding contractual agreements with the AFT and the SEIU, as well as breach the settlement agreement reached with retirees in 2010.
We will endeavor to publish individual presentations on this VCCCDRA blog as they become available.
Come early to assure yourselves a seat in the Boardroom. I hope to see as many of you as can make this meeting. Thank you.
To return to the VCCCDRA website, click here.