And the Sponsors of the Call for the Special Senate Meeting Respond Back--A Continuing Wellness and Shared Governance Dialogue

I have recently posted the University Administration's first public response to the criticisms of the Wellness Program that culminated in the Wellness Program interactive dialogue at the September 10, 2013 University Faculty Senate Meeting (e.g.,Penn State Responds: A Message From the University President). To some that response appeared to be a welcome first step, but only that.  Below I have posted the reply to this Administration initiative from two of the sponsors of the Senate Special Meeting (e.g., Special Faculty Senate Meeting to Consider Penn State Wellness Program: Anouncement of Meeting of Senate Council to Review the Petition Along With Petition Text).

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

I hope that those with views will make their opinions known either at the Special Senate meeting or otherwise to the parties.  As the letter below suggests, there are two intertwined issues that require resolution.  The first involves the substance of the Wellness programs itself, one that requires a greater cultivation of sensitivity to the human rights issues involved in the employment relationship especially when it touches on the most personal issues of human dignity. The second involves the continued cultivation of cultures of shared governance.  This, in turn, implicates the need to avoid formalism--the appearance of shared governance through the establishment of bodies that appear to include stakeholders--but which have no functional value, either because the selection of stakeholders have been marred by corruption and cronyism or because decisions will have been taken elsewhere and presented ready made for the appearance of consultation and approval.  It remains to be seen whether, together, the institutional leadership of the Senate and the university are up to either task.

Penn State Responds: A Message From the University President

Set out below is the message distributed by Penn State University President Rodney Erickson relating to some changes to the Wellness Program that was first announced in July 2013. Also included is the News Release dated Sept. 18, 2013: "Penn State suspends fee for employees who don't take health care survey."

"The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women responds to Penn State's discriminatory violations of privacy rights" -- Wellness and Human Rights

Set out below in its entirely is the letter from Hilde Lindemann, chair of The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women, writing for that Committee, and delivered on September 16, 2013 to David Gray, Senior Vice President for Finance and Busines and Susan Basso, Vice President for Human Resources, of the Pennsylvania State University.  It is entitled: "The American Philosophical Association Committee on the Status of Women responds to Penn State's discriminatory violations of privacy rights."

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer)

 

The letter is notable for suggesting highlighting what had received less attention in the debate over the substantive and procedural missteps and errors that have come to be asserted against the Penn State Wellness program:  that of its particular burdens and intrusions on the privacy rights of women. These may raise not just the issues of violations of human rights (some recognized in law in the United States, others comprising part of an emerging international consensus on rights of personal autonomy and constraints on intrusion) but also core issues that may touch on the constitutional protections of the rights of women. The later issue and one that lies at the core of international efforts like those of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, is that in their quest for financial advantage, business enterprises, including universities, have a responsibility to respect human rights, one which includes a duty to undertake the sort of human rights due diligence, especially when their actions may produce detrimental human rights effects, that Penn State has not shared yet with the University community. (E.g., More Penn State Wellness Programs in the News and From the Bottom Up; ICMM, Integrating human rights due diligence into corporate risk management processes, March 2012; and my own work, HERE, HERE and HERE)

Penn State, Wellness and the Relationship With Third Party Service Providers

The Penn State University faculty Senate is moving toward its special meeting to vote on a resolution relating to the suspension of the Penn State Wellness program and the institution of a more robust engagement basis for structuring any future program,. (e.g., Special Faculty Senate Meeting to Consider Penn State Wellness Program: Announcement of Meeting of Senate Council to Review the Petition Along With Petition Text).  

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

In that connection, it may be useful to consider not only the relationship among university stakeholders, but also between the university and its external partners, particularly Highmark.  To that end this post republishes the 2007 announcement of the current basis of that relationship and its collateral effects.  Further detail may be useful in judging this relationship and its consequences for the way in which the Wellness Program was developed, structured and operationalized.

Penn State's Wellness Program and the View From the New York Times

It is sometimes useful to acquire an outside perspective, especially times times when institutional policy decisions are under stress and where it is unclear that decision makers are willing to come out of their reality producing comfort zones--that framing of reality that is elaborated by the staff who filter information for their use and whose decisions about what the "boss" may want to hear may substantially distort the reality around them.  Leadership effectiveness suffers terribly when leaders stubbornly refise to recognize a reality shaping up around them that does not conform to their expectations or desires.

 (Natasha Singer, On Campus, a Faculty Uprising Over Personal Data, New York Times, Sept. 15, 2013)

But sometimes leaders need to be exposed to something other than the constructed realities on which they base their strategic calculations.  Institutional effectiveness, and the long term welfare of the enterprise, sometimes is contingent on this perhaps painful exercise.   To that end a recent article printed in the internationally influential New York Times may be reshaping the realities around institutional leaders in ways they can neither control nor avoid, might be usefully read.  Natasha Singer, On Campus, a Faculty Uprising Over Personal Data, New York Times, Sept. 15, 2013.  It follows.

In Preparation for the Special Senate Meeting: Useful Questions Keep Coming; Credible Answers Hopefully Will Follow

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

At the September 10, 2013 meeting of the University Faculty Senate, University Administrators stood for questions and presented information to the faculty assembled relating to the new Wellness Program Initiative and to their plans  for its implementation. This effort in informational transparency was much appreciated by many, though some regretted that there appeared to be little effort to foster engagement transparency.  The result, of course, is a somewhat awkward dialogue in which information is presented to a stakeholder governance group with the underlying implication that there is absolutely no intention of permitting further effective governance participation, even at the margins.  One can get a sense of this, and the  record of these efforts, from the Video record of the September 10, 2013 meeting available here. Taking that position is the University's right; but as a matter of strategy, respect for the history and traditions of shared governance and of the hard work of the last several years to restore trust, choosing to proceed in this way may produce quite regrettable and otherwise avoidable outcomes. 

History will decide the consequences of administrative and policy decisions now apparently written in stone.  And the Board of Trustees, as overall institutional manager, will exercise its oversight, accountability and control role. More interesting, both at Penn State and for all enterprises also considering plans like this are questions that continue to arise about the way such plans are structured and defended.  Among those with more resonance were a number referencing the wellness programs focus on women's reproductive strategies and plans.  (VIDEO OF MEETING RECORDING HERE) . These touch on issues of privacy, personal autonomy and respect for human rights and dignity that I have suggested may be legal in the United States but may also come close to touching on human rights detrimental actions that are the object of discussion in international human rights. (Clip of "Penn State professor questions administrators about invasion of employee privacy") There have been little by way of effort among the enterprises considering plans like this in the United States to address the international human rights norms dimensions of these plans. That is a pity; it may produce consequences.  

This post and some that may follow will post questions raised (and responses if provided later)--the object is to further the sort of dialogue that might have been more profitably engaged in before policy determinations had been made, and perhaps to serve as a basis for industry leaders and the third party providers that serve them, in modeling approaches to better policy and implementation methodologies and structures.

Special Faculty Senate Meeting to Consider Penn State Wellness Program: Anouncement of Meeting of Senate Council to Review the Petition Along With Petition Text

At the meeting of the University Faculty Senate on September 10, 2013, the Senate Chair was presented with a Petition to Convene a Special Meeting of the University Faculty Senate for the purpose of having the Senate consider a resolution urging the suspension of the Wellness Program.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

On September 11, 2013, the Chair of the University Faculty Senate, in accordance with Article V, Section 3 of the Bylaws of the University Faculty Senate, announced the convening of a special Senate Council meeting for Tuesday, September 17, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in 102 Kern Graduate Building. The sole agenda item for this meeting is to review the resolution regarding the Take Care of Your Health Initiative. Senate Council will review the issue with the five faculty members (Professors Victor Brunsden, Timothy Lawlor, Stephen Ross, James Ruiz, and Matthew Woessner) designated in the petition.

On September 12, 2013, the Senate Faculty Chair delivered the following notice of special Meeting of the University Faculty Senate:

The following message is being sent on behalf of Brent Yarnal, Chair, University Faculty Senate:

In accordance with Article V, Section 3 of the Bylaws of the University Faculty Senate (excerpted below), I am convening a special Senate meeting for Tuesday, September 24, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the auditorium (118) of the Dickinson School of Law, Lewis Katz Building. The sole agenda item for this meeting is to consider and vote on a resolution regarding the Take Care of Your Health initiative.

The resolution is attached for your reference. At the request of James Ruiz, a whitepaper written by Dennis Scanlon and Dennis Shea, is also attached.

Parking is available in the Katz Building lot and across the street at the Arboretum. University Park senators are encouraged to carpool or to ride the campus shuttle which stops every 15-minutes in front of the Katz Building. The campus shuttle schedule is available at http://www.transportation.psu.edu/shuttle/ShuttleMap2.pdf

The September 24 meeting will be aired live via Mediasite for those unable to attend in person; see http://senate.psu.edu/agenda/mediasite.html for instructions.

I hope your schedule will allow you to attend the special Senate meeting on Tuesday, September 24.

The petition, which was signed by 100 senators, is set out below for your reference. The Senate Council will also have available to it, a whitepaper written by Professors Dennis Scanlon and Dennis Shea. The Resolution follows. Comments should be directed to any of the Resolution sponsors by following the links above.  A summary of the meeting prepared by Jim Ruiz, one of the Special Meeting sponsors, is also included.

Stress Points and Structural Challenges for the Continued Viability of the University Faculty Senate: Remarks Delivered To Past Chairs of the Penn State University Faculty Senate

It was great honor to address the former chairs of the Penn State University Faculty Senate at a luncheon in their honor held at the Nittany Lion Inn.

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

This post includes the transcript of my remarks, Stress Points and Structural Challenges for the Continued Viability of the University Faculty Senate.

The PowerPoints of the presentation may be accessed HERE.

Statement and White Paper From Penn State Faculty--"Assessing the Evidence for Penn State University’s “Take Care of Your Health” Benefits Program"

 (Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)

In the run up to the September 10, 2013 University Faculty Senate meeting to be held on the Penn State University Park campus (agenda HERE) and discussion about the new Penn State Wellness Program, some faculty have issued a statement and a report that might be of interest to those who are interested in the wider debate about changes to benefit structures in American enterprises, including universities.  This debate will likely have repercussions not just within the industry of the university but also influence the way that businesses may approach benefits and wellness programs for their own employees.  For that reason alone, this debate between faculty, university administrators and the health benefit provider industry may be useful for students of American industry and health policy and administration. One hopes that university administrators, like the faculty at Penn State will profit from a careful reading and consideration of these contributions ot the debate.   

This post includes: (1)  Statement of Jim Ruiz, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Matthew Woessner, Associate Professor of Political Science, to the Members of the Penn State University Faculty Senate dated Sept. 8, 2013; and (2)  Dennis Scanlon and Dennis Shea, "Assessing the Evidence for Penn State University's 'Take Care of Your Health' Benefits Program," Sept. 9, 2013 (the authors are professors in the Department of Health Policy & Administration, Penn Sate University).

Statement of the Pennsylvania State University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors Regarding the “Take Care of Your Health” Initiative and Related Employee Benefits Issues

I have posted the University Faculty Senate and Senior level administrative responses to criticisms of Penn State's new Wellness Program. These will be presented publicly at the September 10, 2013 University Faculty Senate meeting to be held on the Penn State University Park campus. (e.g.,The Faculty Senate and Penn State Administrators Respond to Criticisms of the Penn State Wellness Program With My Analysis of Responses).

The newly formed Penn State Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also has issued a Statement that I have posted below. For those interested, the Penn State Chapter of AAUP has also announced that it will host a forum, September 6, 2013 to discuss how to respond to the new wellness initiative at Penn State. This forum is open to everyone--not just AAUP members. The announcement is also set out below.

The Faculty Senate and Penn State Administrators Respond to Criticisms of the Penn State Wellness Program With My Analysis of Responses

Today the Penn State University Faculty Senate released the agenda for the first full Senate meeting of the Academic Year (HERE).  

(Pix from Penn State OHR)

As part of the meeting agenda, the University Faculty Senate will facilitate what it calls a "Special Presentation by David Gray, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer, Susan McGarry Basso, Vice President for Human Resources, and Highmark Representatives Take Care of Your Health Initiative" for which 30-40 minutes has been allocated for presentation and discussion (HERE).

As part of that Special Presentation, Mr. Grey and Ms Basso will present a version of their responses to a carefully crafted set of questions sent to both several weeks ago by the Senate leadership. This post  includes both the questions forwarded and the written responses of Mr. Grey and Ms. Basso. I invite you to read and assess thew value of both the questions posed and the answers given both in terms of their relevance to the concerns of faculty, their value in exposing the failures of shared governance and the mistakes in the conception and roll out of the wellness program, if any. An analysis of the answers given follows.