4 Comments on "Supervisor Insurance Proposal Defeated"

Honna Bowen on Fri, 4th Dec 2009 8:01 pm 

Becker was “trying to send a message” – could you or he elaborate? …What was the “message” and “to whom” was he sending it…? Also,a special thanks to those Supervisors who put the public before themselves and voted “NO”…but seriously,would like clarification on “the message”.

Jim Goldstein on Sat, 5th Dec 2009 11:28 am 

I think there is more that could have been addressed. I proposed earlier in the year before Mr. Becker’s proposal that we have a 10 percent cost sharing of health insurance by all management and elected officials include supervisors that would have saved the county approximatley $100,000 on first glance. In addition, I opposed the 3 percent increase in supervisor salaries which passed after a less than open process on a last minute resolution on the first day of annual session that Mr. Becker voted in favor of. The prior year, we had a discussion after the public hearings and on one of the last days of annual session, we debated the pros and cons of the increase and it narrowly passed. I voted against it then as well and have voted against raises every year. I donate my raises to local and regional charitable organizations and groups. I have always taken the position we as elected officials do not require any raise in salary because we have the health insurance benefit.

Jim Goldstein on Sat, 5th Dec 2009 11:45 am 

I hit the submit button by accident so here is the second half of my comments. I respect what Mr. Becker may have been trying to do in getting us as supervisors to be more open with the public about our benefit package and consider a shared sacrifice. What I do not think was disclosed was how uneven and potentially discriminatory this proposal might have been. It would have impacted each supervisor differently. Those who had family or work insurance at little or no cost would have benefited more than those who would have had to pay the full county cost which no current county employee who is eligible for health insurance has to pay 100 percent. In addition, the proposal included a raise of nearly $7,500 for each supervisor which would have improved the retirement payouts for some supervisors and also increased county retirement payments now and in the future along with FICA costs. It was unclear to me and others how this would play out in the future. It was not clear if this proposal would save money but grant some elected officials substantial salary increases while cutting the compensation of others by 50 percent. In the interest of full disclosure, it would have reduced my current supervisor salary by nearly 50 percent — I favored a proposal of no salary increase, freezing at 2009 and a 10 percent cost share of health insurance, which would have reduced my overall package by 10 to 13 percent which I thought was a reasonable and fair reduction given the economic times. If there were clear suggestions as to how to do this across the board more fairly and save more money, I would have been willing to listen but there were no committee of the whole discussions on this nor were any scheduled. I also brought a resolution at this meeting to ask we study a 10 pecent cost sharing of insurance for all elected officials and management. We now have have county officials earning $80,000 or more and we have union employees who share in their health insurance costs. We also have paid out a number of bonuses to management ths past year, which I voted against due to the current economic climate, we gave our unions increases and I voted against all but the blue collar agreement because they compromised and saved the county about $150,000 as part of that agreement, we had to take nearly $45,000 out of contingency this year to pay for a contractual benefit of tuition reimbursement for a large number of employees who took advantage of college remittance tuition credit benefit, and we then voted management a 1 percent plus $500 basket of goods package for 2010 which I also voted against. So, I opposed a number of measures that have added to the budget but yes, Mr. Becker is correct that there are significant costs to the county in other areas including unfunded state mandates in Medicaid, pre-school and early childhood education costs and transportation and other issues. So, his point about the amount of money we spend on other areas without blinking an eye is a valid one and simply illuminates the fact that about 95 to 97 percent of all board resolutions are passed without debate or discussion as a matter of simply getting business done at the county and that about 3 percent result in debate and discussion or disagreement. Annual session is also where such issues that are not addressed or resolved during the rest of the year come up. I have been raising the issue of cost sharing of health insurance since I came on the board in 2002 and have also argued that until we see a substantive economic recovery in our county, as elected officials, our insurance package is our raise and we did not require a raise. Now, others disagree, and that is fine. That is what debate is about. Mr. Becker, in my opinion, put forth a proposal that could have and should have been studied and reviewed by the board in a series of meetings and then considered. I would have argued for no raise, cost sharing of a smaller portion of the insurance, and I am sure others would have had other opinions. That discussion did not take place this year but hopefully such discussions will have an opportunity to take place in the future. I also have argued that if we are going to discuss health insurance cost sharing, it should be all management and elected officials, not just supervisors, to really make a financial impact and to have a true shared sacrifice. I respect many of the reforms Chairman Becker has advanced and have supported a number of them so it is always disappointing to see him focus on me and my 30 votes on the board when there are others with many more votes in the 1500 total weighted vote system who could make some real impact on the system if they chose to do so. I think the idea of cost sharing of health insurance is valid but I thought Mr. Becker’s proposal has too many problems and questions. My proposal would have cut expenses more fairly and not raised state retirement or FICA contribution but my suggestions were not acted on and voted down as well during annual session.

Wanda Warren Berry on Sat, 5th Dec 2009 11:53 am 

I am not in a position to evaluate the financial ramifications of the various plans for the county, but I do know that Becker’s proposal might have made it easier to find candidates for supervisor. For a number of qualified people, the health insurance part of the package is not an incentive, since they already have coverage. It would seem more equitable to make the salary adequate so that those who need coverage can buy it.

Wanda Warren Berry
Hamilton, NY

Recieve all of our headlines in your mailbox!