Law Profs Object
The former provost's memo only became public after a professor at the Law School dug it up.
Among the faculty, law instructors have spoken out most about the plan. They have focused their ire on Harvard's proposal to reduce the University's contribution to the faculty pension plan by one percentage point annually.
In a summer letter to the professors, Law School Dean Robert C. Clark said some of the objections seemed to stem from a misunderstanding. Apparently, several Law School professors believed that savings from the benefits cuts might fund higher faculty salaries.
Misunderstanding or not, professors' opposition to the proposed changes forced Clark to create a faculty advisory group to hash out the issue.
"It now seems clear that there are so many technical issues and individual perspectives on the issues that a general memorandum going somewhat beyond the explanations already provided by the University's Task Force Report...would not be a fully satisfactory response," Clark wrote in his letter to faculty.
In recent months, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence Charles Fried and Fessenden Professor of Law Bernard Wolfman have emerged as two of the strongest voices in the Law School debate over the proposed benefits changes.
In a July memo to the faculty advisory committee, Wolfman presented an outline of the Yale University Retirement Annuity plan as an alternative model.
Caving Into Pressure
Initially, administrators had indicated there would be few, if any, changes in their benefits proposals before they go into effect on January 1, 1995.
But now they may be caving to the pressure.
Late last month, a summary of the health benefits changes arrived at the homes of professional staff and faculty members. The papers included a surprise: the amount Harvard plans to contribute for part-timers was increased by 10 percent over earlier proposals.
A letter written by Corvey said the change was prompted by "new information" regarding the burden the proposed changes would put on employees, especially part-timers.
"It was largely because we obtained updated market comparisons from other institutions and other employers," Corvey said in an interview last week. "We realized [we] would become less generous than the marketplace, less so than we wanted."
According to Corvey, the final report of the task force and the "compendium" of their work will be available for interested parties to request either late this month or early next month--she thinks. "We continue to hope to meet our self-imposed deadline," she said.
But even if the current controversy over the proposed benefits changes dies down soon, the topic is sure to reignite within the next year.
All of the seven contracts Harvard has with its workers' unions will expire over the next 13 months, and there will have to be new agreements with benefits provisions.
HUCTW members have already said they won't accept the stated benefits changes. Harvard is determined to limit its benefits spending. A conflict seems a good bet, if not inevitable.
"Not everybody can be happy with the outcome," Corvey said last month. "This is inevitably an issue on which reasonable people will disagree."