The Maroon understands why the administration created the new vacation policy for Loyola’s staff members.

But we think the policy needs some refining.

While we believe it is important to cut costs and expand budgets where necessary for the benefit of the Loyola community, and while we commend the administration for fixing some of the holes that this policy created for staff members on a 10-month schedule, we believe that staff members with special circumstances — such as those who plan to be parents in the next fiscal year — should be allowed to present their cases to the administration in hopes of exemption from this policy.

The “use it or lose it” policy — which cuts down the maximum number of vacation days that will roll over into the next fiscal year from 25 days to 10 days — was created to cut costs and manage expenses. The university pays staff members for this vacation time, which eventually causes a deficit as they roll over from year to year. The fewer vacation days Loyola allows staff members to carry over, the more the deficit lowers. The new policy also encourages staff members to use their vacation time in the time allotted. With the recent 43.9 percent drop in endowment, it is in the Loyola community’s best interest for the administration to effectively manage as much cash as possible.

The administration has even fixed the problem that this policy would have caused for 10-month staff members, who otherwise would not have had enough time to use all of their vacation days because it is already so late in the year. By allowing staff members on a 10-month schedule to carry more than 10 days into this next year — essentially giving these staff members a one-year exemption to this rule — the administration has made an impossible demand possible.

We commend them for this consideration. However, we ask that they also consider the staff members who plan to be parents in the coming year. These staff members would have used the rollover 25 vacation days as an extension of parental leave. Although the administration’s current policy for parental leave allows four weeks for parents to care for their newborns, a month-old infant needs more of its parents’ time than this policy permits. Staff members who recognize this fact would have relied on the 25 day rollover to extend the time they spend caring for their child. By making all staff members, including those with special circumstances, subject to this policy, the administration is taking 15 days of parent and child bonding in order to cut costs.

We believe that the administration should offer expecting mothers and fathers an exemption to this rule. These staff members should be able to write an appeal explaining the situation, and the administration should make exceptions accordingly. If the administration is not willing to make these exceptions for new parents, then they should extend the amount of time allotted for parental leave. Managing expenses and lowering deficits is needed, but we must remember to ensure that these policies benefit everyone involved.