The University Board of Trustees unanimously approved a plan at its May 15 meeting to suspend University contributions to the retirement fund for faculty and staff for one year, effective when fiscal 2010 begins July 1, according to Faculty Budget Committee Chairman Prof. Peter Conrad (SOC).The plan will save the University almost $7.4 million, Conrad said. The projected budget deficit for fiscal 2010 will remain at $8.9 million, according to an e-mail from Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Peter French.

Conrad originally told the Justice that the projected budget deficit for fiscal 2010 had dropped to $7.8 million because of an upswing in the economy. However, after learning that French placed the deficit at $8.9 million, Conrad said that because French provides him with financial figures, French's current figure should be taken as correct.

Conrad explained that the decision to suspend University contributions to retirement funds was made when the deficit was projected at $8.9 million.

"While the current University contributions are a fixed percentage based on an individual's salary, all faculty and staff will still be eligible to make individual pre-tax contributions to their own retirement accounts," French wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. "We believe that the suspension of the University's retirement contribution will cover a substantial part of next year's operating deficit, and like colleges and universities across the country, Brandeis is actively engaged in looking at longer-term solutions for our fiscal stability," he explained.

According to Conrad, the Faculty Budget Committee considered several options for covering the budget deficit including furloughs that temporary leaves without pay, pay cuts, layoffs and the suspension of retirement contributions, when developing the plan. For example, Conrad said that in order to cover the deficit through pay cuts, the University would have needed to cut the salaries of faculty and staff earning over $50,000 annually by almost 12 percent.

In an e-mail to the Justice French wrote, "While we performed a detailed review of other options, ... the President and the Board of Trustees believe that suspension of retirement contributions is the least objectionable and most equitable of the alternatives."

"We had a number of . principles that we wanted to try to uphold," Conrad said. "We wanted something to try and avoid layoffs. We wanted something that wouldn't only affect one part of the University, such as staff; we wanted something that at least to some extent had a degree of fairness and even social justice, and we wanted something that would have the least negative impact to people's lives." Since 80 percent of faculty and staff are part of the University retirement plan and the 20 percent who are not are generally the lowest-paid members of faculty and staff, the suspension of retirement contributions option "had a kind of fairness to it," Conrad said. However, Conrad stressed that this plan will only be in effect for one year and is not a sustainable course of action.

The Faculty Budget Committee has no set plans for dealing with the remaining budget shortfall for fiscal 2010 mainly because it is not certain what the remaining deficit will be at the beginning of next year, according to Conrad. He said the committee has discussed possible options but that he was not at liberty to say what those options were.

Conrad said that the idea of suspending retirement benefits came from the larger University Budget Committee, of which he is the chair and which is comprised of both administrators and faculty. When weighing the options, this plan "seemed the least bad of unpleasant options," he said.

"In some ways, this was the most socially progressive [plan], since the best-paid faculty naturally get the highest benefits, and some of the worst-paid faculty turn out not to get benefits at all," Prof. Jonathan Sarna (NEJS) said. "[The lowest-paid] have not elected to be part of this system, so . they lose nothing, which I think is what many of us would have wanted." He added, "Many of us understand that we are very lucky. . There are a lot of people who would like to be in our situation."

Prof. Jane Kamensky (HIST) wrote in an e-mail to the Justice, "Suspending retirement contributions may be the best among a series of difficult and painful choices." After the plan was presented to faculty at the May 14 faculty meeting, some professors expressed doubts.

At the faculty meeting, Prof. Bernadette Brooten (NEJS) raised the concern that the plan to suspend contributions to retirement funds might make it more difficult for faculty to retire. "One of the ways the University is trying to save money is by encouraging more senior faculty to retire," she said.

Brooten also said that there was a question over whether the University would eventually reimburse faculty and staff accounts for the amount that the University does not contribute to retirement funds due to the suspension. "In the long term it makes such a big difference. ... It will enable faculty to retire and have a decent standard of living in their retirement," he said.

Conrad declined to comment on Brooten's first concern but said that the prospect of reimbursement had been discussed though there is no firm plan at this point.

Prof. Nancy Scott (FA) said, "My major concern is that to take money out of my monthly paycheck to pay myself back my retirement benefits is going to effectively be a salary cut. . I'm sorry the money can't be found in another way," she said.

"Both [University President Jehuda Reinharz] and I realize the negative impact this will have for the families of faculty and staff at Brandeis for this upcoming year," French wrote in an e-mail to the Justice. "While I know that we are all hopeful that the national economy has hit bottom and that there are signs of a small recovery underway, we must all realize that the next year will be a difficult fiscal challenge," he wrote.