City Leaders Won’t Approve Change to Domestic Partnership Language
Left, Alderman Mike Phillips has repeatedly asked city leaders for financial information relating to a new domestic benefits package. (City-Times photo)
“I’m saying let’s delay it until we find out how we’re going to pay for it…we’ve got to do something to support this program.'” -Alderman Mike Phillips.
By Brandi Makuski
A move to change legal wording in an agreement to implement benefits coverage for domestic partners died Monday night, when personnel committee members refused to approve any changes without a cost analysis of the program from the city treasurer’s office.
The majority of the committee has vocally supported implementing a benefits package for same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners, with some saying they supported it despite of personal beliefs, but the committee has stood firm in wanting information on the costs borne by the city.
Comptroller-Treasurer Corey Ladick had previously told the committee the city bears a cost of roughly $13,000 for every city employee who changes from a single to a family plan, though he stopped short of offering an estimated figure to include in the budget for the new domestic partner plan, which was first presented to the full Common Council in June.
Council members have since voted to approve the benefits package and Monday’s discussion was expected to be a typical language housekeeping approval.
Committee members debated whether to change some of the language in the affidavit domestic partners would need to sign to qualify for benefits, or to remove it entirely as recommended by City Attorney Logan Beveridge.
The statement in question in the agreement, which both parties must swear is true prior to signing, reads, “We do not have access to other family coverage sponsored by an employer or government- provided medical coverage.”
Beveridge said not removing that portion of the agreement could open the city to a potential lawsuit, saying it sets a different standard than the one already implemented for regular married couples.
“If you look at that in the context of being a (regular) married couple, suppose you had one city employee and one employed in the private sector and the private- sector employee had family insurance available to them. If we applied the same rule to opposite- sex married couples, it would force them to take a financially less- advantageous plan through their private- sector employer. Obviously, that’s not something that we do,” Beveridge said.
“One of the issues I’m concerned about is, you have domestic partners, and if one of them has insurance available to them, as domestic partners, through an employer other than through the city, but that plan would be more expensive or a higher deductible or a lower level of coverage than what’s offered through the city. By keeping (the statement) in there, you’re forcing them to take that one rather than avail themselves of the plan through the city,” he added.
“We don’t have to offer insurance at all, to anyone,” Beveridge said. “But if we are going to we are going to offer it on a level playing field, lest we set ourselves up for a (law)suit.”
City leaders originally used another municipality’s domestic partner agreement as a template while drafting locally- relevant language. Now that the full Common Council has agreed to move forward on the benefits coverage, city leaders must approve any change to the language in the document, meaning it first goes to personnel and any other relevant committee before final approval at the council.
But Committee Member Jerry Moore pointed out the domestic partnership agreement has yet to come before the finance committee, and it’s the unknown additional costs incurred by the city that should raise a red flag.
Personnel Committee Members Moore, Michael O’Meara, Jeremy Slowinski, Mike Phillips and Tony Patton have all voiced their personal feelings on the issue, though Slowinski alone has said he voted against the domestic partnership benefits in their entirety because he is personally opposed to it. O’Meara has typically voted in favor of the program at each turn, while Moore, Phillips and Patton say they support the program but continuously question why not information on cost has been forthcoming.
“It’s getting so close to budget time, and I would like this delayed until it can be included in the budget on how we’re going to pay for that,” Phillips said. “I’m saying let’s wait until (Ladick) comes up with his number, a general number to put in the budget. I’m saying let’s delay it until we find out how we’re going to pay for it…we’ve got to do something to support this program.'”
“By passing this now we’re committed to doing it whether the finance committee comes up with the money or not,” Phillips added.
Mayor Andrew Halverson said that wasn’t practical because the city didn’t have a baseline from previous years as it does with regular married couples, but setting a line item with a specific amount for the domestic partnership program would, in his mind, regulate the number of single plan- to- married plan conversions.
The matter comes once again before the full City Council Monday.”