Category: 01 – Health Benefits

Presentation to the VCCCD Board of Trustees
November 12, 2019

Members of the Board of Trustees, and Vice Chancellor El Fattal.

I’m Rene Rodriguez, President of the college district Retirees’ Association.  I retired from this District 15 years ago, and served as faculty member and a manager in various capacities for 34 years.

Your declaring an impasse last week with the AFT came as a surprise to us, and we are wondering where that leaves the retirees.  We were under the impression that we would be given the time to adequately review the District’s CalPERS proposal, having just received the voluminous materials we requested from the District less than 7 weeks ago.

We have made considerable progress in reviewing the CalPERS health plans, but it will take a few more weeks to complete our review.

We will then want to meet with the District and Burnham and CalPERS representatives to share our findings, and to ask them questions about the differences that we have found between the CalPERS plans and the Anthem/BX plans, to make sure that our findings are accurate.

After which, we will then want to share our findings with the retirees themselves, and give them a chance to ask questions and understand the differences between what the District is proposing and the current Anthem/BX plans.  Only then, we believe, can the retirees as a whole, and its leadership, make an informed decision regarding the District’s CalPERS proposal.

To date, we have found it troubling that the District’s proposal includes an HRA, “to make retirees whole,” and even then, the HRA will not cover all benefit exclusions, and it will only last three years.  Meanwhile, we are expected to give up the promise of quality lifetime healthcare benefits, a promise that is spelled out in contractual and settlement agreement language.

I’ll leave you with this final thought.

As you express your concern for active employees and their futures, I hope that concern equally includes retirees.

Please remember that most of our retirees are faculty, faculty that have made positive impact upon thousands of students over the course of their careers within the three colleges.  These students, who are now responsible community members, will want to know that this Board is treating their retired faculty fairly, and with the respect they deserve.

Thank you.

Rene Rodriguez

Presentation to the VCCCD Board of Trustees
November 12, 2019

I’m Paulette Freedenberg Johnson and I worked at Ventura College for over 27 years.  I’m not speaking for the Retiree exec (even though I know them pretty well), but as someone who communicates with many of the 700 retirees every day and hear how they feel about what you are doing here.

My goal is to represent them and make it clear that the retirees DO NOT support a change to CalPERS, and here’s why:

• We know what’s in every contract since the first contract. There is someone in our group who served on every negotiation team…on both sides.  Our group has a collective memory that you could never have, with membership that includes Chancellors, all Presidents, every manager, and every person who ever worked and retired from the District.

Do you think we have forgotten what we agreed to?  What YOU agreed to?

• We know more than you do right now…..because we’ve done the research and you haven’t.  We know how all of your proposed plans compare to our existing ones and how and why they fall short.We know what other college districts think of CalPERS because we called them.  We know the operational and financial weaknesses of CalPERS.  We know why so many Districts are trying to get out of their contracts…..and how much it is costing them to do so.   We know that the savings they promise disappear in practice….how Districts have to hire extra staff because CalPERS provides no access or support.

We know that it will cost you MORE to be with CalPERS and why.  Do you?

We believe in our contract rights and the 2010 agreement and we are willing to go to the mat to protect them.

We have no problem opposing you with legal action if you do not honor your legal agreements with us.  You cannot REWRITE our agreement….you cannot rewrite history.

• You should not underestimate who you are dealing with:We are professionals, with experience, institutional knowledge, and deep connections in this community and throughout the entire state.
  
  We know how to use media, news outlets, and the internet to bring our concerns to the public if we need to.

We have fought to earn our rights before, have put everything on the line for our contracts every single negotiation, and have been willing to take a stand when we need to.  Fighting for our rights is a skill we forged our entire careers and we haven’t forgotten how to do it now.

Conclusion:

So what I’m telling you here is that we, all 700 of us, will oppose what you are trying to do here.  We do not trust CalPERS and you shouldn’t either.

You would be wise to give us the opportunity to show you how this decision will be costly to the District in ways you apparently haven’t already discovered for yourself.

We are willing to help you understand what you’re getting all of us into.  If you choose to ignore this offer, if you do not honor your agreements and contracts with the retirees, you will energize and mobilize 700 people against what you have done.

Paulette Freedenberg Johnson

Presentation to the Board of Trustees
By Rene G. Rodriguez, President,
Ventura County Community College
District Retirees’ Association
October 8, 2019

1. First, I would like to personally thank Board Chair Dianne McKay, Trustee Bernardo Perez, and Trustee Josh Chancer, with whom we have had a chance to meet, on a one to one basis, allowing us to voice the particular concerns that we have found to date with the CalPERS plans, as well as the CalPERS organization.
2. We look forward to meeting with Trustee Larry Kennedy, and Trustee Gabriela Torres, on a one to one basis, as soon as we can arrange a meeting, to bring them up to date on our current assessment of the District’s proposal.
3. I PARTICULARY wish to express our sincere gratitude to the Board, having recently learned that the Board plans to slow the process down
   • To give all concerned the time to review, more adequately, the CalPERS plans, as well as the CalPERS organization.
   • This will also give the Board, and the District Benefits Committees, an opportunity to explore other options, other than CalPERS, that will help the Board achieve its financial objectives, as well as maintaining its contractual obligations to retirees.
   • Perhaps the Board can also look into why 30 school districts, city and county governments, have left the CalPERS insurance program over the past 3 years.
4. I would like to remind the Board, that during the many years that retirees were active employees, exercising their responsibilities as faculty members, classified employees and managers, that they often were willing to forego salary increases, sometimes over long periods of time, to make certain that we kept in place the quality healthcare program that we have enjoyed from the very beginning until the present time.
5. The meeting that the Chancellor had with the Retirees’ Association Executive Board on September 25, demonstrated to us, that the only way the plan being offered to retirees, the PERS Choice Supplemental Plan, can come up to the standard of healthcare insurance that we have now, is to buttress it up with promises of a short term reimbursement program.  There is no time now to explain all the shortcomings of this band aid approach to our healthcare benefits.
6. For now, let me say that the Retirees’ Association looks forward to a fruitful dialogue with the District regarding our future healthcare benefits.  Thank you.

To visit the VCCCDRA website, click here.

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

1. that all Medicare eligible Tier I and Tier II retirees enroll in Medicare parts A and B, and
2. that retirees would be covered by a CalPERS Medicare Supplement Plan.

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,

1. If the District tries to force Tier I retirees to accept a supplemental plan and NOT the same plan as active employees, and
2. If the District tries to force Tier I retirees to enroll in Medicare when they are not required to do so.

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.

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”:

1. CalPERS is forbidden to offer the same health benefits to active employees and retirees.  Active employees are offered a “Basic” plan of the sort of the current District Anthem Blue Cross Plan, but all Medicare eligible retirees must be enrolled in a decidedly different kind of benefit package:  Medicare and a CalPERS Medicare supplement.  In broad terms, the CalPERS retiree coverage is compatible with Tier II contract provisions as long as coverage is “comparable” with the active “Basic” plan. Tier I retirees cannot have the same plan as actives under the CalPERS plan.  District contract language does not require retirees to have Medicare to be eligible for District retiree benefits.
2. CalPERS requires all retirees eligible for Medicare to have Medicare A and B and be enrolled in CalPERS Medicare supplemental plan before the end of the first year District contract with CalPERS in order for the District to be eligible to contract with CalPERS.  Tier I retirees are not contractually required to subscribe to Medicare A and B or if they choose to do so, they are not required to accept Medicare and a supplement as their District benefit as a substitute for the active employee plan.
3. CalPERS is also 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.
4. District Tier I contractual commitments are not compatible with CalPERS contractual requirements.

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