|
When early retiree Harvey Neese received a letter signed by the University of Idaho from Interim President Steven Daley-Laursen asking for donations, he wrote a letter in return asking to be removed from the donor list.
“The university has changed,” he said. “It has done more harm to itself than I can imagine.”
Neese is one of 268 early retirees involved in the class action lawsuit against UI.
In a statement released Oct. 10, the university is said to retain “the right to revise employment benefits,” just as is possible with any retiree.
The statement was issued in response to the hearing that took place on the same day. The ruling, issued by Second District Court Judge John Stegner, ordered the university to provide a list of all retirees who agreed to leave the university early under VSROP or ESRP. The university, for privacy reasons, had previously withheld the list.
“(The judge) made some decisions that gave us some guidance,” said early retiree Wileen Anderson.
After contacting retirees on the list, Anderson said 70 have contributed directly to lawyer fees for the suit.
The lawsuit was filed after changes were made to contracts signed by individuals who agreed to retire early in exchange for a specific benefits package. Two programs were used to attract employees to early retirement: the Idaho Early Retirement Incentive Program and the Voluntary Separation and Retirement Opportunities Program.
These retirement programs were used to build funds for specific projects in 1999 and 2002. By encouraging early retirement, UI could fill positions with cheaper replacements and build funding for annual budget reduction.
Early retirees became aware of changes to their benefits plan in October 2006. Life insurance benefits would be reduced to a flat rate of $10,000. Neese said many individuals would be losing an average of $15,000 in coverage.
Early retirees would also be responsible for co-pay, a cost Neese said his contract dictated as university responsibility.
“They currently don’t understand what a contract is up there,” Neese said. “To have the university to turn against (early retirees) like this and do it in such a dirty way … ”
A summary judgment is to be given July 16 after data has been compiled for each side. The university will then have the opportunity to settle the suit or continue.
Attempts were made to confront UI on the issue before a claim was filed, said early retiree Joyce Presby. They were told the administration would follow up with their cause, she said, but the group never received feedback.
“It fell on deaf ears,” Presby said. “Basically, I think they were just trying to outlast us. They thought we’d give up, but we didn’t.”
Neese said filing the claim was the last option.
“The last thing you want to do is get into any kind of legal hassle,” he said. “Whoever says this is a great system here is full of bologna.”
Anderson said she was hoping to not have to go to trial. She said some retirees are concerned about the requirements of the process.
“I worked for the university and both (my) children go through there,” Anderson said. “It’s not something we wanted to do. We did what we had to do.”
Anderson said she stands by her statement. Had the university made their changes known, there would be no issue today.
“It’s not the money issue at all,” Anderson said. “It’s the fact that the university broke the contract.”
Moscow-based lawyer Ron Landeck represents the early retirees. He said he feels confident in the case.
“All these people who worked so hard were promised they would receive these benefits,” Landeck said. “The university is incredibly disingenuous when they say they have the right to take away these benefits. That’s not honoring (the early retirees).”
Anderson said she feels confident in their representation.
“It’s going to be bad news if (UI) win(s) because then contracts don’t mean anything,” she said.
 Add as favorites (17) | Views: 323
|
