o Previously: On Nov. 3, the Vancouver City Council voted 5-2 against paying for 15 percent of their dependents’ health insurance premiums, the same as nonunion employees and management.
o What’s new: The city attorney has said the council can legally vote on its benefits. After a heated discussion Monday night, the council agreed to vote again on a new resolution.
o What’s next: City staff will create a new resolution and the city council will discuss and vote on it on Jan. 10.
Following a bit of sparring over the subject, the Vancouver City Council agreed Monday to revisit paying a share of their city-provided health insurance premiums.
o Previously: On Nov. 3, the Vancouver City Council voted 5-2 against paying for 15 percent of their dependents' health insurance premiums, the same as nonunion employees and management.
o What's new: The city attorney has said the council can legally vote on its benefits. After a heated discussion Monday night, the council agreed to vote again on a new resolution.
o What's next: City staff will create a new resolution and the city council will discuss and vote on it on Jan. 10.
The question — of whether the council should match its premium share to what’s paid by management and nonunion employees — has caused controversy on the seven-member council since it was first proposed by Councilor Jack Burkman in October.
After first seeming to be in favor of paying up, the council voted 5-2 on Nov. 3 against matching their contributions to what management and nonunion employees pay. The council currently pays nothing for its health insurance; management and nonunion employees pay 15 percent of their dependents’ premiums. (Union-represented workers pay 10 percent of dependents’ premiums; the city is trying to increase that to 15 percent in negotiations).
At the time of the vote, some councilors questioned whether health benefits really fell under their purview; City Attorney Ted Gathe last week told them that while their salary is set by an independent Salary Review Commission, state law says city councils set their own health benefits.
So on Monday, Councilor Pat Campbell suggested that the council vote again on the matter.
“We’ve been discussing this and delving into the history,” Campbell said. “I think we’re down to the point where I’d like to move forward and make a decision on this.”
First, the group decided to wait to vote until Mayor Tim Leavitt returns from vacation and has time to catch up. The topic will go before the council on Jan. 10, City Manager Eric Holmes said.
The move won’t affect the city budget much: The city would save just over $3,500 in 2011. Paying for 15 percent of a policy with one dependent would cost a councilor $83.63 a month or $62.34 a month, depending on which of the city’s two health plans they are on. Those who opt out of all coverage get $230 a month, well below the $1,000-plus a month cost of providing the health plan.
Four of seven councilors (including Burkman) are on the city health plan. In the first vote, Leavitt and Councilors Campbell, Jeanne Stewart, Jeanne Harris and Larry Smith voted against, while Councilor Bart Hansen joined Burkman in favor.
But Stewart, who has criticized Burkman publicly over the original resolution, said Monday she still has reservations, and read from an e-mail sent by Burkman last week.
“This idea is being pressed as being a leadership” matter, she said. “I think there’s at least as much politics in this as a propensity for leadership.”
She said she disliked the wording in the original resolution, which was drafted by the city’s human resources staff. It read that the council would pay a percentage of “their premiums or their dependents’ premiums.”
But because no employee currently pays a share of their own premiums, just those of dependents, the resolution appears to be a sneaky way to institute a policy that says employees will pay more, Stewart said. She went on to say there may come a day when employees do pay part of their own health care costs, but that should be negotiated with workers.
Burkman said that Stewart was quoting the e-mail out of context. He had no ulterior motives when he brought up paying for part of dependents’ premiums, he said — he just wants to see the council pay the same as employees.
“The old phrase is, ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander,’” he said to Stewart.
“The goose isn’t paying for themselves right now,” she replied. “This is where it goes to the employees going into the co-share (of their own premiums), which currently isn’t being done.”
Holmes stepped in after the councilors continued in a heated back-and-forth that was lively enough to get a send-up Tuesday in Vancouver news parody website The Daily ’Couve.
“There was never any intent whatsoever in the past to suggest a policy that would crack the door open for the expansion of employee responsibility for medical premium-sharing,” Holmes said. “Unequivocally, I can assure the council that was never the case or the intent.”
City staff will create an entirely new resolution for the council to vote on in January, he said.
“Purge from your minds any historic language,” Holmes said. “And if you’d like to consider it, staff is ready to prepare fresh new language for you.”
Andrea Damewood: 360-735-4542 or andrea.damewood@columbian.com.
