WTF?

We just started covering Chapel Hill gov't regularly and this came at us rather quickly. Here's what we managed to get in this week's paper:

The council also changed its health insurance coverage rules extending coverage to council members after they leave office.

Under the old law, council members could get health insurance through the town, but coverage ended when their term ended. Now, once a council member serves two full terms, or eight years, that person will be able to get health insurance coverage from the town after leaving the council. The town will pay for 75 percent of the cost of the insurance and the former council member will pay the other 25 percent.

According to the council committee’s report, both Durham and Orange county commissioners already get 100 percent of the cost of their health insurance paid for when they leave office after serving two full terms, or eight years. The town of Cary starts subsidizing its council members’ health insurance at 50 percent after two terms, 75 percent after three terms and 100 percent after four terms.

Checking on Carrboro's arrangement and how long Town of Chapel Hill employees have to work before they are offered the same deal.

Take a look at the survey results that were included with the ordinance that the Council passed Monday. Some jurisdictions get you up to 100%.

In order to bring this back up, someone who voted for it has to make the motion. I have had numerous conversations with people about this and the feeling is, we will move past the current outrage and it will die as an issue. Let's hope not!

Currently, do serving council members get full health care for their family? Do they have to pay? If they want to sweeten the deal for council members they could give them full coverage, including family, with no premiums while in office and for one year after out of office (to cover time spent finding full-time work that has health care).

One man with courage makes a majority.

- Andrew Jackson

In 2003, the Council made access to the Town’s health care plan available to elected officials but continuation coverage was not an option at that time.  Note that the policy governing FT employees is what applies to members of the Council:  

Sec. 14-59.  Group medical insurance.

I have mixed feelngs about this policy. I do think that health insurance has become insanely expensive - to the point where peopel stay in jobs that they woudl otherwise leave, just to stay covered. So I think it can have a beneficial effect on helping people with less personal wealth to be able to afford to be on the Council.

However, I know how I feel about the way this was passed without public discussion. I don't like it. And continuing to cover people after they leave the Council makes very little sense to me.

I usually agree with the actions of the current council, but this is a mistake and I would support any resolution to rescind it.  Council service is just that, service.   It is not and should not be a full-time job with long-term professional perks.  The argument that council service is time-consuming and therefore councilmembers are limited to part-time jobs that don't provide health insurance is ridiculous, almost insulting to those of us who served while maintaining full-time careers.   Any councilmember can, of course, allow the task to fill long hours by accepting every invitation, participating in every controvery, and studying every issue at a detailed level, but this doesn't help her or him better provide the philosophical guidance that town citizens and town employees need and expect.

Obviously the timing is terrible.  The council provides itself a major perk while significantly increasing taxes during a tough budget year?

These are the same retiree health benefits that full-time town employees have to work 15 or 20 years to qualify for. How about the guys who work harder than just about anyone picking up household trash and hanging on the back of a town garbage truck in 100 degree heat? I'd say they deserve that sort of health plan after twenty years of work. Heck, I'd say they deserve a lot more than that. But for someone who did a couple of terms on the Town Council? Give me a break.

OWASA gives retired employees the option of continuing coverage, but the retiree pays the premium. But because retirees generally use their health insurance more often and have higher cost medical bills, the per employee cost of coverage (as of 3 years ago) was higher than what I pay for independent health insurance due to a small handful of individuals. So even when people have the option of buying into a group policy, their health status can affect the premiums charged to the organization. 

I'm disappointed that this council would provide themselves with a benefit that is not available to permanent, part-time staff. 

The main problem with this is that the Council did this without much public debate or input. One thing I am sure of is that no one has been running for councilman or alderman or commissioner for the renumeration (unless they have some external nefarious arraignments).

The overreaching issue under current course and direction providing healthcare to local government employees with or without including elected officials is going to bankrupt local governments.

This can only be solved at the national level.

Maybe I'm not reading closely enough, but I haven't seen where the town council has extended benefits to themselves specifically, and if they're changing the benefits package for everyone, then that's a budget issue which needs to be analyzed for its long range financial impact before we can make a judgement. 

We wouldn't even have this problem if the healthcare system wasn't so messed up; it makes zero sense to have healthcare provided by employers in a society in which many if not most people change jobs every few years.   The for-profit insurance system has turned health insurance into one of the top money-makers in the country by screwing over sick people. 

The N&O's Orange Chat blog has posted a letter from Mayor Foy:

This matter grew out of the changing nature of the health care industry. The particular issue is that council members who develop a serious health problem during service in office, such as cancer or heart disease, could be unable to obtain health care coverage after they leave office, because of their “pre-existing condition.” Continuation coverage is provided to other local elected people, including the Orange County commissioners.

Of course this doesn't address why the item was on the consent agenda and not discussed publicly.

Doesn't the mayor's letter miss the point? It's irrelevant whether elected officials in other jurisdictions receive continuation coverage. The issue is that full-time town employees now must work twice as many years as council members (and more than 3 times as long as the mayor) to receive the same benefit. I think that's more problematic than the decision to put the matter on the consent agenda.

Matt C pulled it off the consent agenda and voted no.

Congrats to Laurin for her courageous post on her Blog!

It's too bad that Laurin and Mark didn't resist this motion on the first pass.  Some people take longer to assimilate than others, but the toothpaste is out of the tube.   Rescinding the ordinance has procedural hoops to jump thru. 

I commend these two for expressing their second thoughts.  That takes courage.  They'll have to stick their necks out even further to put this proposition back on the table.   

A large number of concerned citizens are doing more than voicing their outrage at the Mayor and Council over adoption the unbelievably high (and unnecessary) ELEVEN PERCENT tax increase, passage of the taxpayer subsidized campaigns measure to extend their political lives indefinitely at taxpayer expense, and the outrageous lifetime subsidized healthcare ordianance change they voted 8-1 (Chajkowski against) to adopt.

For starters, they created and signed a petition to rescind the health care ordinance change and reopen the matter for public hearings.  You can read and sign their petition online.  Just click here http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Chapel-Hill-Citizens .

The next Town Council meetings promise to be much more interesting and well attended than usual!

I do hope at least 3 more Council members will join Laurin and Mark in the request to rescind their previous vote on this. I've seen the Council do it before - it's not impossible.

I hope there is a lesson learned here about PROCESS. I believe that stipends are an essential tools to make sure that those who aren't independently wealthy or retired can afford the massive amount of time it takes to be an elected official. I haven't made up my mind about whether health insurance needs to be part of that support, but that's because we haven't had an opportunity for public dialog about it.

I have been repeatedly disturbed by the tendency of this Council to do the negotiating behind closed doors and then present a (somewhat) united front in public meetings. This may be an efficient way to create policies, but it does not serve the public! Democracy is messy and slow, but that's what it takes to get people involved in governing themselves. I don't think every citizen should have a vote on every issues - that's why we call it representative democracy.

I urge the Mayor and leaders of the Council to think seriously about being more inclusive of those that they represent. There is a real need for more openness and transparency at Town Hall. Without it, the public will continue to lose trust in folks who I think are otherwise hardworking, smart and progressive - in other words: great elected leaders.

Catherine,

No procedural hoops to get through, just a motion and a vote, and an apology, at least from me.

Ruby,

There were no real "negotiating behind close doors" on this one. This item was so at the back of my mind (and maybe others?) when it came up, and I regret that. Sally had called me to alert me to the agenda item, but we talked about it very little and I regret now that I did not pay more attention to this. My website explains more www.laurineasthom.wordpress.com.

It's amazing what we had to go through on that night....a town budget, a novel pilot public financing of campaigns in Chapel Hill, the Performance agreement for the People's Channel, etc. and I truly regret that more citizen time and attention was not spent on this health care issue. It certainly was as important as everything else, but it was buried in 9.5 pounds of council material. That's no excuse, but those are the facts.

The council did not have uniformly private discussions about this matter. Back room deals were not being done. Frankly, I felt a bit out of tune with this item because I don't have health insurance with the Town and don't consider myself a future two term council member. I always cross those bridges when they come and try to vote for what is best for others other than msyelf, but in this case, it was the wrong vote.

I know that since this vote that the council has been inundated with citizens' opinions, and the council will respond.

Laurin laurineasthom.wordpress.com

I have to say that I find this whole thing somewhat amusing.  I mean, what they did was definitely bad but in this area everyone is so gung ho abut having good local government and the town politicians take being a public servant so seriously and then they make a blatant grab in public like this.  They didn't even try to do something behind the scenes that nobody would know about.  It's surreal and also it's funny for it's absurdity.

And they did it at the same meeting at which they raised taxes too!  You couldn't make up stuff this good.

I read today that with regard to raising taxes, Mayor Foy said it wasn't so bad because taxes hadn't been raised the past two years.  Isn't it the case that a percentage of houses are re-assessed every year?  So taxes have been raised each of the last two years, but just for 1/7th of the people and for an amount seven times as much as they deserve in exchange for not getting a re-assessment for seven more years.  (Perhaps 7 should be 5 or 10 in the previous but you get the idea.) 

So this year, in addition to 1/7th of the people getting a tax hike large enough that they won't get another for seven years, everyone will get a separate tax hike.  It sounds like the mayor is using "tax increase" in place of "tax rate incraease."  They are markedly different things. 

Have been out of town and not entirely up to speed on this, but I was unimpressed with the Mayor's explanation in yesterday's CHNews.  And of course, the core problem is the catastrophically broken health care system in general.

But for right now, as I understand it from charts above and discussions, this coverage now applies to elected officials, but only those who have served 5 years or more?  Is that correct?

Also, does anyone have any figures to indicate how many new people this would add to the Town's responsibility for providing coverage -- how many it would have added before the last election, how many it could add after the next election?  

At first glance, the suggestion that the Town might extend COBRA-type coverage up to a couple of years after an elected official leaves the job makes some sense, although the closer that official is to retirement, the less sense it makes.  (Relatedly, would/does the Town's health insurance arrangement include a medicare-supplement type of policy?)

Jose, houses are not re-assessed each year. All real property in Orange County is re-assessed every 4 years. This prosess will hit us in this coming year.