Past Memos

Office of General Counsel

TO:                 Kenneth Brynien
                        Arlea Igoe

FROM:           William P. Seamon

DATE:            March 11, 2008

RE:                 PEF-State of New York 2007-2011 Tentative Agreement
                        Our File No 7076-P

In light of yesterday’s announcements concerning the Governor, questions have arisen regarding what impact, if any, this would have on the PEF/State tentative collective bargaining agreement.

It is our legal opinion that the events disclosed yesterday should have absolutely no impact on the PEF-State tentative collective bargaining agreement.  PEF and the State have entered into a tentative agreement subject only to the ratification process, which includes ratification by the PEF membership and action by the Legislature for implementation of any amendments of law or for the provision of funding.  There is no provision under the Taylor Law which would permit the Chief Executive Officer, in this case a Governor, from refusing to proceed with the legislative ratification process.

Moreover, we have no reason to believe that the State of New York will not fulfill its statutory obligations in moving forward with the tentative agreement, and we expect that ratification will proceed as scheduled.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

WPS/mab

cc:       Statewide Officers

            Roger L. Scales

memo

TO:                 Regional Coordinators and Executive Board Members

DATE:            October 26, 2007

RE:                 CSEA Contract

As you may have learned, the state and CSEA have reached tentative agreement on a new contract.  According to the information we have received CSEA wrapped up their negotiations with the state on October 24^th.  We held off announcing this awaiting a formal announcement from CSEA, however, none has been forthcoming.  It is our understanding that CSEA’s leadership will be meeting early next week to receive information on the settlement.

At this point we have no specific information regarding the agreement.  Once this is available, we will begin a review of its provisions, and issue a summary of the key elements of the proposed contract, along with information on how PEF will proceed.

For the latest information, be sure to continue to check the PEF website for updates.

Kenneth Brynien
President

memo

TO:                 Executive Board
                        Council Leaders

FROM:           Ken Brynien, President 

DATE:            March 22, 2007

RE:                 Negotiations Update

As the expiration date of the current PS&T Unit Agreement approaches, I wanted to update you on the status of negotiations.  Given the change in the Governorship, and the long delay in making appointments to GOER, we are in a different circumstance than we have faced in previous rounds of bargaining.

To date, the State has not commenced negotiations with any of the negotiating units, which is unusual given the nearly all of the Collective Bargaining Agreements expire in a little more than one week.  This situation occurred in large part because of the delay in appointing a Director to GOER.  That circumstance changed earlier this month with the announcement that Gary Johnson was the Governor’s selection to head the agency.  I have already had discussions with Mr. Johnson and we have made plans to meet face to face in the near future.  He has also assured me that once he assumes responsibility for the agency in April, negotiations will be a top priority. 

Vice President Lou Matrazzo assures me that the Contract Team is prepared and waiting for the call to start negotiations.  I passed that information along to Director Johnson who told me that he appreciated our patience while the new administration assumed their new roles.  He also understands that our patience is not unlimited and that the State has a responsibility to commence negotiations sooner rather than later.

In the interim, we have taken several actions to better prepare ourselves for when do get to the table.  I have communicated with the Governor about the importance of continuing funding for the various educational programs provided by the contract even when there is no contract in place.  While we have not received a formal reply, I expect to discuss this issue with his top staff person when I meet with him later this week.

Vice President Matrazzo has also been working very closely with the COLA Committee to start mobilizing our members and other state employees around the issue of cost of living adjustments for employees in high cost areas.  The meetings have been very well received, and more than several thousand of the letters to Governor Spitzer have already been signed.  Even more important, there appears to be significant participation from employees in other unions including CSEA, UUP, and DC37.  In addition, I have also just communicated with the Presidents of the unions representing the uniformed services (NYS Troopers, Council 82, NYSPIA and NYSCOPBA) asking them to join our coalition around the COLA.

I will continue to update you on the status of negotiations, and I expect that the next memo will be to share the date on which we expect bargaining to start.  We will also continue to use the PEF website and the AIM e-mail updates as more information becomes available.

 memo

TO:                 Ken Brynien
                        President

FROM:           Bob Carrothers
                        Director of Contract Administration

RE:                 April 2007 Merit Advance Rate
 

As you are aware, the Merit Advance Program will be implemented on April 1, 2007.  Under this program, eligible PS&T Unit employees G-18 and below can receive base salary adjustments that raise their base salaries to the same level paid to CSEA employees.  The Merit Advance Rate increase will first appear in pay checks dated April 26, 2007 (for the Institution payroll) and May 2, 2007 (for the Administration payroll). Individual eligibility for the Merit Advance is contingent on satisfaction of the following criteria: 

A.                 one complete year at job rate;

B.                 five years of cumulative State service;

C.                 no unsatisfactory  evaluations for three prior years;

D.                 no finding of guilt, settled NOD, or pending NOD during the three years preceding the effective date of the merit advance (excluding NOD’s which are dismissed by an arbitrator or withdrawn by the agency during the period);

E.                  participation in agency-sponsored training during prior three years.

(See, Merit Advance Side Letter, p. 173-74, 2003-2007 PS&T Unit Agreement.).  GOER has issued a jointly negotiated memorandum to all Directors of Human Resources providing additional guidance on the application of these criteria.  A copy is attached.  We have also attached a FAQ which we prepared which should answer most questions about the program. 

As we anticipated, earlier this month OSC generated a list of employees who satisfy the first two criteria. Agencies will then be responsible for deleting employees from that list who fail to satisfy the remaining three criteria.   The GOER memo includes some important clarification regarding how agencies should apply the remaining 3 criteria.  First, only unsatisfactory evaluations result in a disqualification under criteria (c).  If no evaluation was received, the rating is deemed satisfactory.  Second, only NOD’s served after April 1, 2004 may be used to bar eligibility under criteria (d).  Third, agency sponsored training is limited to training at which attendance is a work assignment without charge to accruals.  Such training must also directly support or improve skills required for an employee’s current job assignment. 

Any questions should be directed to Contract Administration, 1 (800) 342-4306 x 223.

memo

TO:     Executive Board
            Council Leaders

FROM: Ken Brynien

DATE: October 25, 2006

SUBJ: SEFA Appeal

Our members and other state employees play a major role in the quality of life in New York State. From keeping us safe to responding to disasters to helping deliver vital support to the elderly and disabled, hard working state employees like you make our lives better in hundreds of ways every day.

Our members are also concerned citizens of their communities, with thousands involved in volunteer community activities in their neighborhoods across the state. Many of our members support these vital community services by contributing to the State Employees Federated Appeal (SEFA) through payroll deduction.

SEFA enables our members to direct their donations to the specific non-profits that are doing good things in their community. Donor choice allows state employees to support organizations that are worker-friendly and making a difference in the lives of working families.

Whatever choices you make for yourself and your family, I encourage all members of PEF who can to participate in the 2006 State Employees Federated Appeal and to support high-quality human services in your own community that complements the work that our members do every day on the job.

As this year’s SEFA campaign theme states, when you donate through SEFA, you will “Change a Life . . .Change a Neighborhood . . .Change the World.”
 

memo

TO:                 Executive Board and Council Leaders

DATE:            October 27, 2006

RE:                 Alan Hevesi

I am sure that all of you share my concern with the sad situation that has unfolded regarding State Comptroller Alan Hevesi’s alleged improper use of a State-employed driver. Clearly, Mr. Hevesi has acknowledged a serious error in judgment, but we should all keep in mind that the full facts may not be clear until the case is properly investigated and reviewed through the appropriate legal process.

PEF has endorsed Alan Hevesi based on his strong record as Comptroller, particularly his vigorous defense of the State pension system against those who want to undermine our pensions. Our endorsement was made by a vote of the PEF Executive Board and that endorsement stands.

In talking to members about this issue you should inform them that the Republican candidate for Comptroller, Christopher Callaghan, has called for a new Tier 5 that would eliminate our traditional defined-benefit pension and replace it with a 401-K type plan that would be subject to the risks of the stock market. Callaghan says he wants to “roll back” the pension improvements that were adopted in the year 2000.

If Christopher Callaghan is elected Comptroller, he will be the sole trustee of our pension fund, even though he has stated his intent to get rid of our traditional, secure pension system.

Mr. Callaghan is also not qualified for the role of managing State finances.

Here is what the New York Daily News Said about him:

“…Callaghan, on the other hand, a career government accountant who prides himself on being a part-time tax preparer upstate, is absolutely unprepared to take custody of the retirement accounts of almost 1 million public workers. He seems like a nice, decent man. The Wall Street sharks would surely have him for breakfast and toss the bones, …

…For now, you can only stack the candidates' qualifications side-by-side. Over here, Callaghan, until recently the treasurer of Saratoga County, budget $200 million. Over there, Hevesi, who has capably watched over the $114 billion state budget, gotten solid returns on pension fund investments, pushed for reform of New York's unaccountable public authorities and conducted respected audits hither and yon. And before all that, turning in a similarly good performance as New York City's controller.

Callaghan was unsuited for the job from the moment the Republicans nominated him. So, at this time, it has to be Hevesi.”

We all regret that this situation has occurred. We each must vote according to our conscience. But under the circumstances, I strongly recommend that all PEF members vote for Alan Hevesi for State Comptroller.

Kenneth Brynien
President

Attachment

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders

FROM: Lou Matrazzo, Vice President & 2007 Contract Chair
Lola Parks-Guerra, Chair, PEF COLA Committee

DATE: October 5, 2006

SUBJ: COLA Petition

Recently you may have received a letter or e-mail asking you to circulate a petition to President Ken Brynien asking him to support a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in the upcoming negotiations with the State. We believe that distribution of this document in the workplace does nothing to aid our Contract Team in this fight, and even potentially undermines our ongoing efforts related to COLA. Accordingly, we now take the extraordinary step of asking you not to circulate these petitions.

First and foremost, asking the members to sign a petition to Ken Brynien about COLA is an unnecessary activity. When President Brynien was chair of the 2003 Contract Team, he was a staunch proponent of the team’s efforts to advance the COLA initiative. More telling still, President Brynien was the lead author of the 2006 Convention resolution that established COLA as a top priority for the upcoming round of bargaining. That resolution was adopted unanimously by the delegates and it is certain that President Brynien will not overlook the issue when we go to the table.

The COLA petition also potentially undermines the efforts of the negotiations team as well as the COLA Committee. The authors have established their own figure for a minimally acceptable COLA adjustment. Were the members canvassed? Is it too high? Too low? PEF leadership and the Contract Team are unified in their goal to achieve the highest COLA possible, so why set an arbitrary limit before we even begin negotiations? The only impact of fixing COLA to a specific number will be to bind the hands of the Contract Team from the very start.

Later this fall PEF and GOER will conduct the COLA study required by the PEF Contract. How embarrassing it will be if the data supports a cost of living adjustment higher than one we’ve already announced publicly is our “bottom line”. With that figure in public distribution, who believes we can achieve more, no matter what the justification may be? The petition also undercuts the action plan established last year by the PEF COLA Committee in several ways. First, the Committee determined that the most important key to success was to enlist the support of the other State units. You may recall that in the last round of bargaining PEF was the lone voice advocating for COLA. When CSEA and UUP accepted contracts without the COLA adjustment, that obstacle became insurmountable. To increase our odds of success, the COLA Committee determined that we needed to forge coalitions with the other unions to make sure that COLA is part of the pattern settled for all the civilian units. President Brynien has had preliminary conversations with CSEA and UUP leadership, and the COLA Committee is now setting up appointments with local leaders in both unions. Coalition building is a delicate business, and to approach potential partners with having already determined what the “bottom line” position will be will poison our attempts before they really even start.

Finally, the COLA Committee has also recognized that member mobilization will be an enormous component of any successful campaign. We understand, however, that the mobilization “resource” is not unlimited and we have to be focused and judicious when we undertake any comprehensive membership campaign. The recently distributed COLA petition is neither. Since it has members taking action for no particular purpose, it has the potential to alienate this key group from taking action when the Contract Team and the COLA Committee believe the time is right and the appropriate target is established.

President Brynien, the Statewide Officers, the Contract Team and the COLA Committee remain steadfast in their support for making COLA a major priority in the next round of bargaining. No one believes, however, that achieving such a structural change to the traditional pay model used by the State will be easy. We have our work cut out for us, and we believe that the COLA petition now being circulated will make our job just that much more difficult. And while we appreciate the enthusiasm of those who crafted and distributed the petition, their energies are better utilized supporting the efforts of the team.

We appreciate your support and again ask that you immediately stop circulating the COLA petitions. We look forward to working together with you to help us achieve this important benefit for our members.

If you have any questions about this memo, please contact either one of us directly.


cc: Statewide Officers
Roger Scales
Robert Carrothers
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders
Agency Labor-Management Chairs

DATE: July 21, 2006

RE: Certification and Licensure Exam Fee Reimbursement Program Update


I am pleased to inform you the Certification and Licensure Exam Fee Reimbursement pilot program was finalized and announced to all agencies by GOER.

The Certification and Licensure Exam Fee Reimbursement Program, a pilot program for PEF represented State and Roswell Park PS&T employees, provides reimbursement of certification and licensure examination fees. The time period covered by this program is September 1, 2005 – March 31, 2007. An employee can be reimbursed a maximum of $600 during this period for certification and licensure examination fees.

This program is funded under Article 15 of the 2003-2007 negotiated Agreement between New York State and PEF and is overseen by the NYS/PEF Joint Committee on Professional Development, which is charged with reviewing, approving, and funding the professional development and training needs of the PS&T Unit workforce. The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations will administer the program.

Please distribute this update and the attached flyer and guidelines to all PEF members in your constituency/Divisions. It will also be posted on the PEF website www.PEF.org and the GOER website at http://www.goer.state.ny.us/train/pst/CertLicenseExamFee.

If you have any questions regarding the Certification and Licensure Exam Fee Reimbursement Program, please contact PEF’s Director of Human Resources and Education, Cliff Merchant, by e-mail at or by phone at (800) 342-4306 ext. 328.

Thank you for your assistance in publicizing this valuable new professional development benefit.



Roger E. Benson

Attachment
cc: PEF Staff
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders

DATE: July 19, 2006

SUBJ: Governor’s Veto of the 25/55 Retirement Incentive

As you are aware, a bill to create temporary early retirement incentive was passed by the Senate and the Assembly S8408/A11805. The bill contained a 25/55 “window”, but did not include the traditional targeted ERI. The bill did not offer any additional pension service credit; rather it eliminated penalties that would otherwise apply to members who retire before age 62 in Tiers 2, 3 or 4. It does not affect Tier 1 since those members can already retire at age 55 without penalty.

On July 19, 2006 the Governor vetoed this bill. At this point the Legislature is not in session, and no date for a legislative session has been scheduled.

PEF will continue to advocate for the 25/55 concept and for a broader retirement incentive that would be available to members in all tiers. We will also continue to advocate for pension reforms to reduce the differences among the pension tiers.

Roger E. Benson
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders

DATE: July 12, 2006

SUBJ: Recent Flooding/Time & Attendance Grievances

As you know, there was serious flooding in the Southern Tier and, in some cases, extending into PEF Regions 2, 6, 9 in addition to Region 5. A number of regional and local leaders have inquired regarding what position they should take when members were (a) sent home by supervisors without the authority of GOER/Civil Service using the “Early Directed Departure” mechanism and/or (b) unable to get to work because of local flood conditions.

I have been advised that there is significant grievance precedence to support grievances filed by members who followed directions of their supervisors to leave the work place and, therefore, should not be expected to use leave credits. While it is possible that the Governor’s Office and/or GOER may be involved in trying to clarify the lack of uniformity between offices, it would be appropriate for employees who reported to work but were directed to depart to file grievances under contract Article 12.13 to preserve filing deadlines.

For those employees who had full-day absences due to the flood, I have requested that the Governor’s Office apply to Civil Service for a waiver of the Time & Attendance Rules for June 28, 29 and 30. If the State seeks such a waiver and that request is granted, time charged for absences on those days will be restored.

In a related matter, it would be extremely helpful to Central PEF to know the approximate percentage and number of employees who were at work on the above dates; therefore, I would ask that Council Leaders from affected Divisions provide that information to PEF’s Mobilization Director, Margaret Messer, at ext. 287 as soon as possible.

If you have any questions regarding Time & Attendance grievances, please contact your Field Representative.



Roger E. Benson

cc: Field Offices
Contract Administration
Mobilization
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders
Agency Labor-Management Chairs

DATE: June 12, 2006

SUBJ: ERI Update


Please find attached a memo from our Legislative Director, Brian Curran, regarding the above. In summary, he indicates that the Assembly will be considering an AFL-CIO proposal 25/55 ERI, but not a provision that includes one month of additional credit for each year of service. There is not matching legislation at this date in the Senate. During the two windows of availability, a member in Tiers 2, 3 or 4 can retire with no penalty if they have 25 years of service and are 55 years of age. Retirement is at the employee’s option – it is not targeted by management.

The details of the AFL-CIO proposal are outlined on the attached. PEF will continue to lobby on our original proposal; however, will not oppose the AFL-CIO version. We view this AFL-CIO proposal as a beginning step in what may lead to further discussions in the Legislature. We will keep you updated on any new significant developments.


Roger E. Benson


Attachments
 

memo

TO: Executive Board Members

DATE: June 14, 2006

RE: Senate Action on Cost Benefit Analysis Legislation

For the past two years PEF has been waging an aggressive “Go Public” campaign. This campaign has focused on making state government more transparent, accountable and efficient. We have had some major victories in this campaign with the passage of legislation that relates to reporting and disclosure about contracts for consulting services and legislation that restricts procurement lobbying along with disclosure requirements. While these victories have been impressive, still more work needs to be done.

One piece of legislation that is still outstanding is the Cost Benefit Analysis Legislation (S6575 Spano / A1259 John). This is a good government bill that would reform the process by which the State awards contracts for services. The bill requires that, before a state agency enters into a contract for personal services, it must first conduct a cost/benefit analysis to see if the contract will save money as compared to doing the work in-house with state employees.

The Assembly passed this bill unanimously in 2005 and 2006. The Senate has yet to take action on this bill.

With one week left of session we need to communicate with the Senate that they need to act on this critically important piece of legislation now! I urge each of you to immediately reach out to your Senator and ask them to tell Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno to bring this legislation to a vote. For your information and use I have attached a fact sheet (Requires Adobe Reader) and informational flyer that clearly states why this legislation is beneficial to the taxpayers of New York State. Please report any legislative contacts with your regional PAC Chair.


Thank you.
 

Roger E. Benson

Fact Sheet (Requires Adobe Reader)
Informational Flyer

memo

TO:                 Executive Board
                        Council Leaders
                        Agency Labor-Management Chairs                                   

DATE:            April 14, 2006           

SUBJ:            GO PUBLIC; Cost Benefit Analysis Legislation

As you know, the Governor recently signed our Contract Disclosure legislation; the third piece of our GO PUBLIC campaign.  With the remaining funds allocated by the Executive Board, we will now begin pushing the final GO PUBLIC piece, Cost Benefit Analysis legislation.

As we begin this lobbying campaign around Cost Benefit Analysis, an important first step is that our leadership has a full understanding of the importance of this legislation. Attached is a fact sheet for your information (Requires Adobe Reader).  We expect to use a version of this fact sheet in our lobbying campaign with the media and the legislature.  This will be the beginning of a broader lobbying and public relations effort to complete the last piece of our current GO PUBLIC campaign.

While I am pleased that the three first pieces of legislation are now law, Cost Benefit Analysis certainly will be the most difficult effort. We are stepping frontally into this fight to preserve our members’ jobs and slow the use of contracting out and consultants in New York State.

Thank you for your past support of GO PUBLIC as we begin this final part of the campaign.

Roger E. Benson

Attachment (Requires Adobe Reader)

memo

TO:         Executive Board
                Council Leaders

DATE:    April 14, 2006

RE:          PSWP Workshop Program

The Professional Development Committee (PDC) successfully implemented and enhanced several professional development programs over the past two years. The PSWP Workshop Program was delayed as a result of the state’s mandated RFP and contracting process. As a result, it has only been accessible to PEF members since January.

GOER has established a network of agency representatives, (PSWP Liaisons) that has been charged with the responsibility of identifying professional development needs within the state agencies, as well as distributing information about the workshop program. Unfortunately very few agencies have responded with workshop information to date.

The memorandum attached from PEF’s Director of Human Resources and Education, Cliff Merchant, we believe that it is extremely important for PEF Labor/Management Chairs, Council Leaders and Executive Board Representatives to get involved in this program and mobilize their members to identify the professional development workshops that our members need and are important to their continued professional development or licensure/certification. That information must then be communicated to the agency PSWP liaison, Rockefeller College and Cliff Merchant.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Cliff Merchant by e-mail at cmerchant@pef.org or by phone at extension 328.

 

memo

TO:                 2005 PEF Delegates

DATE:            January 12, 2006

SUBJ:             Parity Enhancements

The recent negotiations between the Transit Workers Union (TWU) and New York City have once again highlighted the divisive issue of two-tier benefits. The TWU stood strongly against management demands for divisive tiers of pension and health benefits, choosing to go on strike rather than be subject to the inequities proposed by management negotiators.

As many of you know, there have been a number of resolutions from PEF delegates over the last 20 years for sick leave and salary parity for PEF members.  I am particularly pleased that in these last two rounds of contract negotiations, we have made significant progress addressing these issues as well as substantially reducing inequities between retirement tiers by eliminating the 3% payment of salary pension contribution for Tiers 3 and 4 after ten years in the retirement system.

This memo and attached pie chart identify these enhancements as a percentage of the PS&T unit membership and reinforces PEF’s success in addressing these divisive multi-tiered benefits. This information is also provided on the last page of this memo.

In the last round of negotiations after a twenty year effort, PEF successfully negotiated the end of inequities in the accrual of sick leave for all employees hired after April 1982.  Every PS&T unit member now earns 13 days sick leave each year, instead of 10.  This long standing injustice resulted from a contract concession made in the 1982 negotiations, and every PEF Contract Team since then has sought to end this disparity.

A number of PEF delegates have questioned whether all geographic areas of PEF members benefited equally from this sick leave parity enhancement.  The following table demonstrates that currently the highest percentage of members hired since 4/1/82 and benefiting from the 13 day enhancement generally is in our downstate area; however, the difference is not significant for any given region.  The average percentage for all regions of PS&T unit members hired since 4/1/82 is approximately 71% and this percentage increases every day with new hires and the retirement of our more senior members. 

On average, the financial value to those members who moved from 10 to 13 days sick leave is $659.91 per year and this figure will continue to increase as salaries expand. The overall value to our entire membership will also increase as a greater percentage of members achieve 13 days sick leave per year.  The total current annual benefit to all PS&T unit members who receive this new benefit is approximately $24.6 million.  Finally, because a greater number of sick days can be applied to final salary credit determinations (200), when our members retire, this negotiated benefit extends to retirement health insurance, as well.

The elimination of the 3% pension payment after ten years for Tiers 3 & 4 as a result of the 2000 negotiations currently enhances or will enhance the base salaries of approximately 46,882 members (89.4%). 

Finally, PEF successfully addressed the first step toward complete salary parity with CSEA when this was bargained in the last round of negotiations. This benefit will improve base salaries for nearly half of our PS&T unit members (approximately 23,764 members) (45.4%).  The total value of the salary parity step benefit per year is estimated at $12.5 million in 2007, which will be added to base salaries.

The percentages of our current membership affected by these parity enhancements are provided in the attached pie chart.  As the chart demonstrates, these combined parity enhancements affect or will affect 93.4% of the PS&T unit members in some positive fashion.  More importantly, these enhanced benefits reduce the inequities in benefits and salary separating one member from another doing the same work.

The total base salary increase to the membership affected by these parity enhancements exceeds $87 million a year or an average of nearly $1,800 a year per affected member. These increases are in addition to negotiated percentage raises.  My congratulations and appreciation to the 1999 and 2003 Contract Teams, staff and members who fought for these enhancements.  Of course, there is still much to be done to achieve complete parity for all PEF members in salary grades and pension. 

I applaud the principled position of TWU President Toussaint by firmly opposing the division of his old and new members by pension and health benefit tiers.  Likewise, PEF has been diligently addressing this same issue in the last two rounds of negotiations, and I am pleased to summarize this information for you.  I hope this is helpful and provides you with talking points for conversations with PEF members regarding the value of the Union.

Thank you for your support and leadership.

Roger E. Benson

Attachments (Requires Adobe Reader)

cc:       Edward McElroy, President, AFT
            Andrew Stern, President, SEIU
            Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, SEIU
            Nat LaCour, Secretary-Treasurer, AFT

memo

TO: Delegates

DATE: January 9, 2006

RE: Enhanced PSTP Voucher Program for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007

I am very pleased to announce an Enhanced PSTP Voucher Program for fiscal year 2006- 2007 for PEF represented New York State and Roswell Park employees. This tuition support program is developed and administered by the PEF/New York State Joint Committee on Professional Development (PDC) utilizing contractually negotiated funds.

As detailed below, the PSTP Tuition Voucher program has been significantly enhanced for fiscal year 2006 – 2007 for courses that commence on or after April 1, 2006 and on or before March 31, 2007:

For undergraduate courses - Two vouchers (instead of one) may now be used for each course taken. The maximum value of each voucher continues to be $600 and a maximum of six vouchers per participant are available during the fiscal year.

For graduate courses - Each graduate voucher now has a maximum value of $1,200 (instead of $600). Two vouchers may still be used per graduate course taken, and a maximum of six vouchers per participant are available during the fiscal year.

All other provisions of the existing PSTP Tuition Voucher Program will remain in effect for fiscal year 2006-07. Guidelines will be available through the Professional Development page of the PEF website (www.pef.org) and on the GOER website (www.goer.state.ny.us/train/pst).

The PSTP Voucher Program has been the primary tuition support program for PEF represented employees in the PS&T Services Unit taking college courses since 1994 offering two vouchers per year. The PDC has enhanced the program during the 1999 – 2003 and 2003 – 2007 collective bargaining agreements to the current benefit of six vouchers per year. These new enhancements will provide a substantial increase in tuition support to the members who participate in this program and reflect our ongoing commitment to address members’ professional development needs.

Please distribute this information to all PEF members throughout your constituency. This information will also be posted on the PEF website and reported in The Communicator. I extend my appreciation to Executive Board Representative Patricia Smith, PEF Trustee Olubiyi Sehindemi (Mr. B) and Cliff Merchant, PEF Director of Human Resources and Education for their efforts to expand these benefits as part of the PDC. If you have any questions regarding the PSTP Voucher Program, please contact the PEF Education Department at extension 328 or visit the PEF website (www.pef.org).



Roger E. Benson


cc: PEF Department Directors
Field Offices
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders

DATE: January 6, 2006

SUBJ: Major Promotion Test Battery Changes

On December 30, 2005, the Department of Civil Service announced a number of major changes relating to the administration of the Promotion Test Battery (PTB). There are two policy changes that are most significant to PEF members.

1) Department of Civil Service is retroactively reducing the amount of time PTB scores can be banked from ten to four years.

2) Department of Civil Service will be alternating the holding of PTB exams every other year rather than holding both annually.

Attached for your information is my letter to Civil Service Commissioner Daniel Wall requesting that he reconsider these changes and agree to a meeting to discuss PEF’s concerns. I have also attached a memo from Tom Cetrino with the attached DCS General Information Bulletin (Requires Adobe Reader) analyzing the potential impact for PEF.

In addition to pursuing a meeting with the Department of Civil Service, I am directing that the PEF Civil Service Enforcement Department, PEF Legal Department and the Jeff Satz Statewide Civil Service Committee review the PTB policy changes for any possible challenges. Other activities may also be initiated on this issue depending on the response from Commissioner Wall and the reviews. Until that time, I ask that all of our members who have any issues relating to these policy changes to contact the Department of Civil Service directly at 518-457-2487 or 1-866-697-5627 to voice their concerns.

I will keep you informed of the status of this issue.


Roger Benson

Attachment

cc: Jeff Satz Statewide Civil Service Committee
Civil Service Enforcement Department
Legal Department
Field Offices
 

memo

December 20, 2005

Mr. George H. Madison, Director
Governor’s Office of Employee Relations
2 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223

Re: Empire Plan Prescription Drug Program

Dear Mr. Madison:

We are very concerned that the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) has notified the Department of Civil Service that they will not be able to make a final determination on the Empire Plan Prescription Drug Program contract with Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) and its pharmacy benefit manager subcontractor, Caremark prior to 12/31/05. To ensure continuation of prescription drug coverage beyond this date, OSC is recommending Civil Service begin discussions with CIGNA/Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI) to extend the existing contract for a period of 180 days. The State’s failure to have a contract in place for January 1, 2006 poses a serious disturbance to the prescription benefits of the more than one million people enrolled in the Empire Plan.

Throughout the recent procurement process, PEF repeatedly stressed the importance of minimizing the potential for disruption to our members. Now, at the 11th hour, we face a situation where there may be significant interruption in prescription drug benefits not once, but twice during the coming year. If, as the Comptroller recommends, the CIGNA/ESI contract is extended, which formulary will be used? Will it be the 2005 ESI National Preferred Formulary (the one currently in effect), the 2006 ESI National Preferred Formulary (which contains many changes from 2005) or the 2006 Empire Plan Preferred Drug List (developed in conjunction with Caremark)? Moreover, if the Cigna/ESI contract is extended, our members will face a second round of disruption as the State then transitions to whoever is awarded the Empire Plan Prescription Drug Contract. This is, frankly, unacceptable to PEF.

Since the preferred drug list was first introduced into the Empire Plan Prescription Drug Program, we know that enrollees have used information about the list to help choose between various health insurance plans for the upcoming year. More important, we know that many people made their choice for 2006 based on information the State provided about pending changes in their coverage. Whatever solution(s) to this problem you might contemplate, PEF expects the State to assure that the following fundamental components of the Empire Plan Prescription Drug Program continue:

1. There will be no changes to the 2006 Empire Plan Preferred Drug List beyond those previously announced and communicated to our members;

2. The Empire Plan pharmacy network will continue to include all major retail pharmacy chains in New York; and,

3. Any contract extension will be for a term of one year. This will assure that enrollees will again be given the option to change their health insurance plan prior to any changes in the preferred drug list or network of participating pharmacies being implemented prior to January 2007.

Sincerely,


Roger E. Benson
President

cc: Alan Hevesi, Comptroller
William Howard, First Deputy Secretary to the Governor
Thomas Sanzillo, First Deputy Comptroller
Daniel Wall, Commissioner, Civil Service