SOUTH PORTLAND —For the first time Monday, a
majority on the South Portland City Council agreed publicly to phase out a
longstanding health insurance benefit that has been a growing topic of
controversy since 2008.
The 4-3 survey of opinion capped a three-hour workshop that marked the first public comment most councilors have made on the issue since January, when resident Al DiMillo sued the city, claiming the health plan provided to councilors since 1977 is illegal because it is not mentioned in the city charter, which limits councilor compensation to a $3,000 annual stipend.
DiMillo, a columnist for The Current, agreed to drop his suit June 28. In return, Mayor Patti Smith scheduled Monday’s workshop discussion, at which she and councilors Rosemarie De Angelis and Alan Livingston supported ending the benefit. Councilor Tom Coward was against any change, while Tom Blake, though he personally favored ending the benefit, would only support the formation of a commission tasked with recommending to voters a total compensation package for city councilors. The requisite charter changes could go to a citizen referendum next June, he said.
Although Councilor Gerard Jalbert also favored ending the benefit, he also insisted the stipend paid to councilors also be cut to zero. Livingston, De Angelis and Smith tried mightily to induce Jalbert to divorce the two issues, but the impasse was not broken until late in the meeting, when Maxine Beecher, initially for the status quo, agreed to phase out the insurance benefit. When making the switch, Beecher noted that she is up against term limits and must leave the council at the end of her term in December, after nine consecutive years.
After the meeting, Smith said a workshop to decide how best to phase out coverage could happen as soon as Aug. 27. However, she would not know for certain, she said, until consulting with City Manager Jim Gailey later in the week. With multiple proposals on the table, that workshop is expected to be another marathon session, Smith said, and she wanted to make sure there are not any other issues that, for the sake of timing, require a spot on the agenda.
“I think we’ve seen here tonight that the next workshop on this, when it comes, will have to be a single-item agenda, or maybe something with just one other small item,” said Smith.
Among competing proposals mentioned Monday for phasing out the healthcare coverage are plans to end it with the November election, at the end of the fiscal year June 30, and at the end of the term for each sitting councilor. It remains an open question whether the council will also put their stipends on the table. A number of residents, including DiMillo in a charter revision proposal he submitted, have said cutting the health benefit should be tied to a stipend hike. Smith, in particular among her peers, called the pay rate “ancient,” although she noted only voters can change it by amending the city charter.
When the charter was adopted in 1963, it
stipulated, "The annual compensation of Councilmen shall be $600."
The pay rate was bumped to $1,000 by the state Legislature in 1965, and then by
local voters to $1,500 in 1971. In 1986, voters set the stipend at $3,000,
where it's remained. Meanwhile, in 1977 the City Council voted to take
advantage of a 1969 change in Maine law that broadened the definition of
"employee" to elected and appointed officials for purposes of group
health insurance policies. The council at that time voted itself full health
insurance coverage and the benefit has since been part of every annual budget.
This year, the city budgeted $100,927 – the amount needed if all seven councilors took a family plan, for which the city pays between 79.4 and 85.34 percent of the premium. Taxpayers cover 100 percent of individual plan costs for city councilors.
Blake and Coward are enrolled in family coverage, at a hit to taxpayers of $14,418 apiece. Beecher has an individual plan, which will cost $3,566 through the end of her term. Jalbert initially declined coverage, but following a recent job change has signed up for an individual plan through Jan. 1, at a cost of $3,319, when his employer’s insurance carrier has its next open enrollment period. De Angelis, Livingston and Smith have all declined coverage, a fact De Angelis pointed out when it seemed she lacked the votes to move on her stated goal of killing the council benefit.
“At this point, we have a split council and it’s interesting that it’s split exactly on who takes the benefit and who doesn’t,” she said. “We have three councilors who don’t take the benefit and four who don’t, and that’s’ exactly where we are right now.”
For his part, Jalbert supported cutting the health benefit, but only if the council stipend also was slashed to zero – a proposal for which there was zero support. The two issues, he said, had to be joined “so that no councilor is able to feather their nest in any shape, way or form.”
Asked after the meeting if his refusal to budge off that stance was a ruse to keep his health coverage in place, Jalbert pointed to a January 2010 memo authored by City Attorney Sally Daggett, one of three legal opinions the council has received on the compensation issue.
“You can look at the first paragraph of that and judge for yourself,” he said. “In my mind, setting everything to zero prevents any councilor from doing anything that is self-serving though all of this.”
In the 2010 letter, Daggett said she was following up on a January 2009 opinion because, following De Angelis’ November 2009 election, the councilor had made a “request for cash reimbursement for the dollar value of single coverage . . . because she has chosen not to be covered.”
While Daggett said in 2009 that nothing prevents the city from offering health insurance to councilors even though the $3,000 stipend is the only compensation expressly listed in the city charter, an in-lieu-of payment would “run afoul of the dollar limitation.”
De Angelis has said that she took the health coverage when offered to her during her first term, from 2003-2006. However, public debate on the benefit in 2009 convinced her to forego coverage when she won re-election later that year. She has claimed that Daggett’s 2010 letter misrepresents her inquiry – that she did not actually want the cash buyout, but was merely asking what was and was not possible.
Still, the only argument she made against the insurance coverage Monday was that it was “not fair and equitable” because those councilors who declined coverage get far less for their service than those who take the benefit, and because part-time city employees must cover a portion of their health insurance premiums. Neither she nor anyone else on the council touched on DiMillo’s point, that the benefit is not just inequitable but also illegal, because it’s not provided for in the city charter.
That position was bolstered when the city went out for a
second opinion last November. William
Plouffe, an attorney with the Portland firm DrummondWoodsum, said the
healthcare benefit "does not comply with the [$3,000] compensation
limit" in the charter. However, given a dearth of relevant case law, he
said, "the answer is not free from doubt."
De Angelis had stirred the pot by requesting that opinion during her tenure as mayor. On Monday, she ruffled still more feathers by comparing the council’s health plan to “highway robbery.” Taking the benefit while city employees must work a 35-hour week to get the same level of coverage is, she said, “unconscionable, unacceptable and just incredible behavior.”
“I don’t see myself as unethical,” said Beecher. “I am very, very offended by that.”
“Well, that’s the first time in my life I’ve been called a highway robber,” said Coward, calling De Angelis’ arguments against the health benefit, “misrepresentation” and “spin.”
Despite a petition signed by nearly 200 residents, submitted by resident Gary Crosby in December, both Coward and Beecher said they doubted taxpayers are as up in arms about their healthcare coverage as claimed by DiMillo, De Angelis and others. Beecher even seemed to regret getting dressed up for the Monday’s workshop.
“When they said there’d be a lot of folks here tonight, I certainly though I should look halfway decent,” she said. “It was said half the community was going to show up, but they’re not here. They didn’t call me and, except for one email, that’s all I’ve heard of it.”
Just 13 residents attended Monday’s meeting. Of those, two spoke in favor of the health benefit.
Math teacher Jill Gorneau, of Walnut Street, noted that heath care premiums and stipends for councilors, combined, adds up to just 0.2 percent of the city’s $28.58 million municipal budget, or 0.08 percent of the total $72 million budget, including the school department.
“I think that’s a very small price to pay,” she said. “I want my councilors happy.”
Willard Street resident Terry Reager, claimed to know people who have died for lack of sufficient insurance.
“I know you all work really hard and I think you deserve it,” she told the council. “I’m not the kind of person to say that because I have lousy health insurance you should to. I applaud you for finding a way to get quality health insurance.”
However, the remaining speakers decried the policy, starting with DiMillo, who was granted a special dispensation to exceed the usual two-minute limit on public comment.
Highland Avenue resident Stanley Cox said Daggett’s opinion “doesn’t prove anything.
“Lawyers can prove anything,” he said. “It doesn’t make it legal. I feel this is a blatant disregard for government clarity and transparency.”
“In monitoring this debate over the past few years, you can imagine how shocked I’ve been by observing the self-serving behavior exhibited by some of you on the City Council,” said Marilyn Riley of Augusta Street. “In this economy, when many citizens cannot afford health insurance, I would have expected councilors to, at a minimum, suspend health insurance payments for themselves. It’s time for councilors to start modeling the behavior that’s been expected of South Portlanders for generations.”
A CLOSER LOOK
Proposals made by each South Portland City Councilor Monday on how to handle a longstanding health insurance benefit that has become a source of controversy in recent years:
Councilor Proposal Individual status Cost to taxpayers
Maxine Beecher Phase out benefit Single coverage $3,566 (to end of term in Dec.)
Tom Blake Form Blue-Ribbon Commission to send a total compensation package to public vote Family plan $14,418
Tom Coward Maintain status quo Family plan $14,418
Rosemarie De Angelis End benefit ASAP Declines coverage $0
Gerard Jalbert Phase benefit and stipend to $0 over three years Single coverage $3,139 (to Dec. when plans to unenroll)
Alan Livingston End benefit, but let current councilors maintain coverage until end of terms Declines coverage $0
Mayor Patti Smith Put the issue to voters Declines coverage $0
A CLOSER LOOK
How councilors are compensated in The Current coverage area, as well as in some of Maine's largest cities:
Stipend Healthcare Retirement Other
Auburn $1,800 (Mayor $4,000) No No None
Bangor $2,000 (Chair $2,500) No No Life Ins. (at cost)
Cape Elizabeth $0 No No None
Lewiston $3,180 No Yes (2.9% match) None
Portland $5,812 (Mayor $65,401) Yes (100% self; 47% family) Yes (4.4-7.5% match) Life Ins./Dental (at cost)
Scarborough $1,500 (Chair $1,750) No No None
South Portland $3,000 Yes (100%) No None
Westbrook $3,000 (Pres. $3,500) Yes (at cost) No None
No comments:
Post a Comment