If you are Louisiana faculty and you have not received the following e-mail (from ALFS and AAUP), please read it now and then act. I am sending one e-mail to one member of the House Education Committee each day, until I have e-mailed them all. I strongly suggest everyone else do the same.
The e-mail:
“House Bill 179 by Representative Carter has been introduced in the Legislature, apparently at the request of LSU administrators. The stated intent is to curb abuses, but the practical effect for faculty is that it takes a current faculty fringe benefit (of which we all know there are way too few) that is ‘written in stone’ and puts it under institutional control, making it very iffy at best. This is a bill that we should all be very concerned about.
“Below is a question and answer section that gives more information on the bill as well as some observations on the bill from faculty member Michael Matthews. After that I have inserted information on the members of the House Education Committee who will be considering the bill. Please use this information to contact members of this Committee by email or phone as soon and as often as possible. It would be helpful if individual senates and AAUP chapters could take formal action and communicate the action to the Committee.”
“If we fail to act, this may become new policy which we will all have to live with.”
Questions and Answers concerning HB 179 (2008 Regular Session)
1. If HB 179 becomes law will all Higher Education faculty lose the right to Unlimited accrual of Annual and Sick leave? Ans. YES (HCR223 proposed law will have PAID TIME OFF leave; no Annual or Sick leave will exist).
2. If HB 179 becomes law will I lose all of my accrued Annual and Sick Leave? Ans. YES. HCR 223 states “All sick and annual leave shall be combined into a Paid Time Off bank” (all accrued leave will be called PTO).
3. If HB 179 becomes law will I lose the right to unlimited accrual of leave? Ans. YES. HB 179 states “Accrual of leave, including limits on maximum accrual, shall be as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.”
4. If HB 179 becomes law could I lose the right to take leave if I’m sick? Ans. YES. HB179 states: “Leave accrued in the Paid Time Off bank may be used for the purpose of rest, relaxation, vacation, or personal or family illness and needs as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.” Current law defines reasons for usage.
5. If HB 179 becomes law will I lose my current right to sell up to 500 hours of Annual and Sick leave upon death or retirement? Ans. HB 179 states “Accrued leave in a Paid Time Off bank for which unclassified and academic personnel may be paid upon separation from employment shall not exceed three hundred hours.” Current law allows for 25 days sick leave (200hrs) and 37 ½ annual leave (300hrs) upon death or retirement. The proposed law does not spell out how or how much you would receive when you die or retire.
Comments by Michael Matthews:
“Upon separation from employment, maximum payment of leave would be capped at 300 hours. HB 179 does not provide for a “grandfather clause” which would allow currently employed faculty to retain their leave.
“Maximum accrual of leave would be defined by each individual institution. Because HB 179 caps payment of leave at 300 hours, it is logical to assume that any institution would limit annual accrual of leave at an approximate level.
“Remember that 300 hours is only six weeks of leave, and that serious illnesses such as cancer, or major surgery may require much more time.
“HB 179 does provide for ‘an extended sick leave bank’, but gives the institution the option to control how the extended sick leave bank will be used, and for what purposes. Under such a policy, faculty members may be told that their illnesses do not meet proper standards for the use of extended sick leave.
“The bottom line, of course, is that our accrual of sick and annual leave is provided by state law, and HB 179 would give governing boards and university administrations that authority. Under HB 179, leave policies would be established according to administrative needs. These policies could also change from year to year, depending on political or financial expediencies.”
House Education Committee email addresses, 2008:
Carter, Stephen <carters@legis.state.la.us>;
Trahan, Donald M <larep031@legis.state.la.us>;
Badon, Austin <larep100@legis.state.la.us>;
Armes, James K. <armesj@legis.state.la.us>;
Aubert, Elton <auberte@legis.state.la.us>;
Carmody, Thomas <carmodyt@legis.state.la.us>;
Chandler, Billy R. <larep022@legis.state.la.us>;
Chaney, Charles R. <chaneyb@legis.state.la.us>;
Dixon, Herbert B. <dixonh@legis.state.la.us>;
Downs, Hollis <larep012@legis.state.la.us>;
Edwards, John Bel <edwardsj@legis.state.la.us>;
Hardy, Rickey <hardyr@legis.state.la.us>;
Hoffmann, Frank A. <hoffmanf@legis.state.la.us>;
Leger, Walt III <legerw@legis.state.la.us>;
Richardson, Clifton R. <richardc@legis.state.la.us>;
Ritchie, Harold L. <larep075@legis.state.la.us>;
Smith, Patricia Haynes <smithp@legis.state.la.us>.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
Now I am starting to get responses to my e-mails and they are interesting – they have information on plans and also the committee doesn’t seem to fully understand implications of the measure, at least not as explained here. Hmmm. One more thing to think about.
A professor in the know said this by collective e-mail:
“I’d like to add that the questions and answers below were put together by Penny Ferguson and the United Federation of College Teachers, LFT, AFT. The original version was in response to House Resolution 223, which was presented to the legislature a couple of years ago. That’s why it says in some places HCR 223 instead of HB 179. Thank you UFCT for helping us fight a terrible bill that will take away some of our hard earned benefits. I?ve emailed all the members of the House Education Committee urging their opposition to HB 179, and I hope all of you will too. (It’s best to use your own personal email address.) I do not want to lose the sick leave I’ve earned and the right to use sick leave toward retirement, and it is certainly not a good idea to have PTO time, which must be requested by the faculty or staff member and approved by each institution. If someone is sick, they may be told they’re not sick enough for PTO! Please contact the legislators listed below.”
One of the committee members says this:
“I certainly understand your concern. However, please allow me to clarify HB 179. The bill provides the option for each public postsecondary education management board to offer a new leave program – it is not mandatory for every management board to offer an alternative leave program. In the event, your institution offers an alternative leave program, we plan to amend the bill to grandfather existing employees. In such an alternative program, sick and annual leave benefits will not be eliminated. Instead, sick and annual leave will be combined into a single bank, Paid Time Off (PTO). PTO leave may be used for rest, relaxation, vacation, or personal or family illness. Additionally, an Extended Sick Leave (ESL) bank will be established to be used for serious personal or family illness. As you probably know, under the current law, sick leave may only be used for personal illness, not to care for an ill family member. Under the proposed law, faculty and unclassified staff will be allowed to expand their current use of sick leave. This will be particularly beneficial to nine-month faculty who currently do not earn annual leave and are not allowed to use their earned sick leave to care for their family members. Many institutions view this as an attractive benefit in recruiting new faculty members. I hope this clarifies your concerns.”
I haven’t figured it out. I think this representative does think it answers concerns, but I don’t think it answers the concern about PTO time that the professor articulates above. I’m not sure about the argument about the 9 month faculty who don’t earn annual leave: which ones don’t … do continuing instructors not?
Another AAUP member says this:
Just a quick update on HB 179. The Senate Executive Committee met with Marian Augustine (Asst. Vice Chancellor at HRM) this afternoon on HB 179 for about 45 minutes. She is completely on top of this bill as it is progressing in the legislature. She informed us that the bill is being revised. 1) The grandfather clause is being reinstated so that it will not affect any current person. The person can choose to continue on the old plan or may opt to choose to enter the new plan. 2) An amendment is in the works that will define a minimum leave benefit that every institute must have. That is the bill after the amendments will also define a minimum as well as a ceiling benefit that can be instituted by a system. There are certain other benefits in this bill that will help some individuals. For example, 9-month faculty members do not get annual leave, and sick leave can not be used for taking care of a sick child or an elderly. The bill allows for such time off.
In short, it is a complicated situation and the bill will help some, be neutral to some and may be less beneficial to some depending on the individual’s personal situation and his/her time of joining the institute. Marian will send me an amendment and the new wordings as soon as she has them and I will forward them to you. According to Marian, Chip has also contacted her and probably will also receive the same information.
Also, the individual who addressed the LSU Faculty Senate on its April 16 meeting on HB 179 was Penny Ferguson from Louisiana Federation of Teachers. The distributed material had both Bill Stewart and Michael Matthews (from ULL?) names on them. I can scan and send this material to you if you so desire.
Please note that the benefits for the current sick leave are quite different for those retiring through then Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) and those who are on the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) at LSU. 90% or so of new faculty members at LSU-Baton Rouge select the ORP for whom the change will not be significant and the flexibility of using the leave for other than personal sick leave may be attractive. Those in TRSL may choose to be “grand-fathered” by the rewrite of the bill. An important unknown is what will be the new defined “bottom” in the amended version. If that is reasonable than this bill may not be as draconian as it looked at the first glance.
House bill 179 allows university boards to cap employees’ leave time—something they could not have done before. If the university boards do so, the universities will save millions of dollars. I propose we change the bill to prevent the boards from capping leave, change the bill to keep the amount of leave paid to employee at his separation from the university the same, and do nothing to the bill where it proposes a new type of leave that can be used for about anything.
The major problem is that university boards will likely cap the amount of leave time for new employees. All employees will probably suffer with the proposed bill when the employees leave the university but the dollars lost with the new bill is not a huge amount of 100 hours (?) of pay. Employees on a defined-benefit retirement system, will likely lose because the university boards will not allow employees to use leave accumulated throughout the employees’ career to be used to calculate the employees years of service. Most employees over the last ten, fifteen years (?) have not selected this type of retirement system, however.
Although the bill’s grandfather clause will prevent capping of leave time for old employees, this is not a good reason to approve the plan. It still remains a bill that gives a benefit with the new liberal leave policy but most likely would take away many benefits from employees, new employees albeit, but employees.
I suspect, too, that even if university boards wanted to cap leave time for existing employees, they could not. That is, leave time is equivalent to salary or retirement income that was earned. The university administration cannot take what you had already earned without the employee’s permission.
It is worrisome, too, that the bill allows the university boards to decide the cap amount of leave time. As far as the courts are concerned, legislative statutes are enforceable in a court of law while many university board regulations are not. In the employment-law realm, for example, grievance procedures for high school teachers or those on civil service do carry the full weight of the law but not for the non civil-service university employee. Sometimes legislative efforts are far superior to university board actions.
Thanks for your comment, Paul! More comments have come through on the ALFS and Senate lists, including critiques of the comment just before yours. My April 1-23 inbox got obliterated by the server yesterday and I have lost them; I will post them when I get them back. The committee supposedly met yesterday – do you know what happened?
Note: one of the comments was from the librarians’ union and they have lobbyists in BR working against this bill. They’ve got a cogent critique from the point of view of 12 month employees (n.b. librarians here are defined as faculty).
From Chip Delzell:
Dear members of the LSU Chapter
and of the Louisiana State Conference of AAUP,
On May 1, the LSU Faculty Senate unanimously adopted Resolution 08-13, “Opposition to HB 179, the Sick/Alternative Leave Bill”:
Whereas on April 16 and May 1, 2008, the LSU Faculty Senate discussed Louisiana House Bill 179 (?Sick/Alternative Leave?), which was originally
pre-filed in the Legislature on March 14, 2008, and which was followed by an informal, newer version, incorporating several amendments proposed by the LSU administration, as posted April 28 at the website of the Faculty Senate, http://www.lsu.edu/senate; and
Whereas the Faculty Senate finds both versions of this bill to be premature, and flawed in content and in the procedure that has led to
them;
Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate opposes both versions of the bill.
Therefore be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate:
(1) urges the LSU administration to withdraw its support of this bill;
(2) urges the LSU administration in the future to follow the procedure of
shared governance by formulating changes to sick and annual leave policy in consultation with faculty and staff before sending them to the
Legislature; and
(3) asks State Representative Stephen Carter to withdraw HB 179, in order to allow a more carefully reasoned bill concerning Paid Time Off
to be formulated.
Within a day or two, Resolution 08-13 should be posted at
http://www.lsu.edu/senate.
The LSU Faculty Senate Constitution declares:
“The Faculty Senate may suggest action as well as make inquiries and
recommendations to the Provost, or if appropriate through the Provost to the LSU Chancellor and/or the LSU System President, on any aspect of
University life….”
Accordingly, I understand that LSU Faculty Senate President Kevin Cope will send Resolution 08-13 to LSU System President John Lombardi,
via LSU Provost Astrid Merget and LSU Chancellor William Jenkins. It seems that the LSU System is the prime mover of HB 179 (though my knowledge is second-hand).
Meanwhile, on April 30 I promised you that I’d send the official statement of the LSU Chapter of AAUP to the members of the House Education
Committee. So far one member has acknowledged receipt of my message; see below.
Sincerely,
Charles Delzell (Math, LSU),
President, LSU Chapter of AAUP
http://www.aaup.lsu.edu
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:37 -0500
From: “Richardson, Rep. (District Office)”
To: Charles N. Delzell
Subj: RE: Statement of LSU Chapter of American Association of University Professors re HB 179 (Sick/Alternative Leave bill).
Thank you for taking the time to write.
I will take your email into consideration.
Sincerely,
Rep. Clif Richardson
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 1:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Charles N. Delzell
To: Stephen Carter ,
Donald M. Trahan ,
Austin Badon ,
James K. Armes ,
Elton M. Aubert ,
Thomas Carmody ,
Billy R. Chandler ,
Charles R. Chaney ,
Herbert B. Dixon ,
Hollis Downs ,
John Bel Edwards ,
Rickey Hardy ,
Frank A. Hoffmann ,
Walt Leger III ,
Clifton R. Richardson ,
Harold L. Ritchie ,
Patricia Haynes Smith
Subj: Statement of LSU Chapter of American Association of University
Professors re HB 179 (Sick/Alternative Leave bill).
Dear Members of the House Education Committee:
Donald M. Trahan, Chairman,
Austin Badon, Vice Chairman,
James K. Armes,
Elton M. Aubert,
Thomas Carmody,
Stephen F. Carter,
Billy R. Chandler,
Charles R. Chaney,
Herbert B. Dixon,
Hollis Downs,
John Bel Edwards,
Rickey Hardy,
Frank A. Hoffmann,
Walt Leger, III,
Clifton R. Richardson,
Harold L. Ritchie, and
Patricia Haynes Smith:
On April 29, 2008, the LSU Chapter of the American Association of University Professors
hosted a 90-minute forum, attended by approximately 35 LSU faculty and staff, on the subject of Louisiana House Bill 179 (“Sick/Alternative Leave”), which was originally pre-filed in the Legislature on March 14, 2008, and which was followed by an informal newer version, incorporating several amendments proposed by the LSU administration, as posted April 28 at the website of the LSU Faculty Senate, http://www.lsu.edu/senate.
At the end of the forum, those in the audience voted unanimously as follows:
(a) to state that we find both versions of this bill to be premature, and flawed in content and in the procedure that has led to them; and
(b) to go on record as being opposed to both versions of the bill.
Those in the audience also voted unanimously:
(1) to urge the LSU administration to withdraw its support of this bill;
(2) to urge the LSU administration in the future to follow the procedure of shared governance by formulating changes to sick and annual leave
policy in consultation with faculty and staff before sending them to the Legislature; and
(3) to ask State Representative Stephen Carter to withdraw HB 179, in order to allow a more carefully reasoned bill to be formulated.
Thank you for your consideration.
[OUT OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER]: This was Tuesday’s message from the AAUP, in preparation for the meeting that produced the resolution reproduced in the commment just above this one.
**********************************************
Dear members of the Louisiana State Conference of AAUP:
Two UPDATES on today’s AAUP Forum for all Faculty and Unclassified Staff at Louisiana Public Postsecondary Educational Institutions:
4:30pm, today, April 29, 2008,
E137 Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex, LSU,
corner of South Campus Drive and Tower Drive,
Baton Rouge.
Topic: Louisiana House Bill 179:
The “Sick/Alternative Leave” Bill
For Faculty and Unclassified Staff
at Louisiana Public Postsecondary Educational Institutions.
FIRST update:
We now have a third discussant on the panel:
Prentiss (Penny) Ferguson
President, United Federation of College Teachers
http://la.aft.org/011300
He will join the two, previously announced discussants:
1. Marian Caillier, Assistant Vice Chancellor,
LSU Office of Human Resource Management,
and author of HB 179; and
2. Professor Bill Stewart (Southern University New Orleans),
Vice President (& Past President), AAUP Louisiana State Conference
(http://laaaup.org),
and President, ALFS (Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates).
SECOND update:
Last night I received Vice Chancellor Caillier’s new, redline draft of HB 179, featuring a number of proposed amendments to HB 179. (Recall, HB 179 was “prefiled” by Representative Stephen Carter in the Louisiana House of Representatives on March 14.) Later this morning the new, redline draft (which incorrectly says “original” at top) should also be available at http://www.lsu.edu/senate. I have not heard whether Representative Carter will go along with Marian Caillier’s proposed amendments.
Here is my own, quick (amateur) comparison of HB 179 and the new, redline draft:
1. Grandfathering:
1.a HB 179 has no grandfather clause for existing employees.
A covered institution could force all faculty and unclassified staff, old and new, into the new, alternative leave program.
1.b. The new, redline draft says, at the bottom:
“ADD A GRANDFATHER PROVISION to provide that at the time a postsecondary management board implements an alternative leave
program, all current employees are grandfathered in the existing leave program pursuant to R.S. 17:3312 and R.S. 42:421(B) as applicable, but
may opt to participate in the alternative leave program….”
My question: Why not require each institution to allow new AND old employees the option to participate in the alternative leave program or
the existing leave program? Analogy: Since 1989 LSU has been allowing each new faculty member to choose whether to participate in the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana or the Optional Retirement Program. No grandfather provision was necessary when this change was implemented.
2. Sick leave, annual leave.
2.a Current law requires each covered institution to credit sick leave hours to each faculty member and unclassified staff person, and annual leave to unclassified staff but not to 9-month faculty members. I don’t know much about annual leave, so here I stick to sick leave.
2.b HB 179 allows each institution to adopt an alternative leave program, in which:
“All sick and annual leave shall be combined into a Paid Time Off [PTO] bank.”
“Leave accrued in the Paid Time Off bank may be used for the purpose of rest, relaxation, vacation, or personal or family illness and needs as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.”
2.c The new, redline draft deletes the first sentence quoted in 2.b above (about combining sick and annual leave into PTO).
3. Maximum accrual of Paid Time Off:
3.a Current law declares: “Accrued unused sick leave earned by an employee shall be carried forward to the succeeding years without limitation.”
3.b HB 179 declares, instead: “Accrual of [the new, flexible, “Paid Time Off,” PTO] leave, including limits on maximum accrual, shall be as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.”
This would seem to allow an institution to “define” the limit on maximum accrual of PTO leave to be zero (0) hours–i.e., to offer no PTO leave at all, for new and existing employees. Admittedly, the job market might force the institution to offer some level of PTO despite the new freedom to abolish it.
3.c The new, redline draft adds the following proviso to the HB 179:
“… provided that such maximum accrual is not less than 350 hours.”
This shrinks the loophole in HB 179; the institution would not be able to abolish sick leave altogether, but would be able to cap it only as low as 43.75 work days.
4. Maximum accrual of the proposed new “Extended Sick Leave.”
4.a Current law does not seem to mention Extended Sick Leave. In HB 179, this program is meant to replace traditional “Sick Leave.”
4.b HB 179 declares:
“Accrual of extended sick leave, including limits on maximum accrual, shall be as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.” This would seem to allow the institution to “define” the limit on maximum accrual of Extended Sick Leave as low as zero (0) hours.
4.c The new, redline draft adds the following proviso to HB 179:
“provided that the maximum accrual is not less than 1000 hours.”
This shrinks the loophole in HB 179; an institution would now be able to cap the Extended Sick Leave benefit only as low as 25 work-weeks.
The critics of HB 179 can take credit for identifying the two, infinitely wide loopholes described in sections 3 and 4 above (on maximum accruals), and for thereby forcing the authors of HB 179 to propose the new, redline draft, which shrinks those loopholes to finite proportions.
But even the redline draft still retains two more infinitely-wide loopholes in HB 179:
5. Monthly rate of accrual of Paid Time Off [PTO] and Extended Sick Leave:
5.a Current law declares:
“The earning of [sick] leave shall be based on the equivalent of years of full-time state service and shall be creditable at the end of each calendar month in accordance with the following general schedule: …” The schedule is fairly complicated, but it prescribes a credit of anywhere from 1 to 2 days (8 to 16 hours) of sick leave per month of service.
5.b Concerning HB 179’s proposed new PTO, HB 179 declares, instead:
“Accrual of [PTO] leave, including limits on maximum accrual, shall be as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.”
This would seem to allow an institution to “define” the monthly rate of accrual of PTO to be as low as zero (0) days per month–i.e., to offer no PTO leave at all, for new and existing employees.
5.c Similarly, concerning HB 179’s proposed new Extended Sick Leave,
HB 179 declares:
“Accrual of extended sick leave, including limits on maximum accrual,
shall be as defined by each public postsecondary education institution.”
This would seem to allow an institution to “define” the monthly rate
of accrual of Extended Sick Leave to be as low as zero (0) days per
month–i.e., to offer no Extended Sick Leave leave at all, for new and
existing employees.
5.d The new, redline draft does not address these two, infinitely wide loopholes in HB 179.
There is another problem with HB 179 and the new, redline draft. HB 179 declares:
“Each public postsecondary education management board shall have the option to provide sick and annual leave for unclassified and academic personnel pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 17:3311 and 3312 and Subsection B of this Section, as applicable, or to provide an alternative leave program, or ‘Paid Time Off’, as described in this Subsection, provided such program DOES NOT YIELD A GREATER BENEFIT than the sick and annual leave benefits as provided in R.S. 17:3311 and 3312 and Subsection B of this Section, as applicable.” Emphasis added.
How does one determine whether an institution’s alternative leave program yields a greater benefit than the existing leave program yields? And does this refer to the AGGREGATE benefit for all covered employees in the institution, or to the benefit for any one, individual employee? One particular employee may find the institution’s new, alternative leave program yields a greater benefit for him than the existing leave program yields for him; would that make the new, alternative leave program illegal for that employee?
Perhaps after a few of years of experience with the new, alternative leave program, the institution will be able to compare the number of hours of leave taken for various purposes by those employees in the alternative leave program (divided by the number of employees in that program), with the number of hours taken by employees in the old program (similarly divided as above). Whichever program allows more hours of leave to be taken per 100 employees, can then be said to “yield a greater benefit,” perhaps.
Anyway, I would replace this proviso by the following:
“…provided such program yields an aggregate benefit APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN VALUE TO that of the [existing] sick and annual leave benefits….”
I.E., the new program should be REVENUE-NEUTRAL (or “expenditure-neutral” or “budget-neutral”). I believe that we want no aggregate loss of benefits to the employees; right? If the administration objects to my proposed proviso, then we will become even more sure that their main intent with HB 179 was to reduce aggregate benefits, after all.
Sincerely,
Chip Delzell, President
LSU Chapter of AAUP
http://www.aaup.lsu.edu
P.S. Reminder: please come to the AAUP Forum:
Today, 4:30 (right after the Graduate Faculty meeting, next door), E137 Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex, LSU
It is defeated! The LSU administration withdrew its support for the bill and Rep. Carter withdrew it! Thanks AAUP and ALFS!
Now we must defeat HB 199 (which will allow concealed weapons on Louisiana university campuses).