The Truth About the Domestic Partner Benefits Ruling

You aren't hearing the truth about what the judge ruled.  Once again the local media is not interested in examining an issue past a few dramatic sound bites.  Let me answer some questions for you in this post.

Whose fault is it that the retirees and others are going to have their benefits cut off? 

Could this situation have been avoided all to together?

Is there any way to save the retirees' benefits?

All great questions - I'm glad you asked.

First of all, there are three parts to the judge's opinion and really only one is concerned with the affect on retirees and others who once had benefits and now don't.  We will deal withthe one part that is the most important to the majority of the people involved - whether or not the ballot issue meant to screw more than the just the gays.

The judge writes "Once the ordinance passed, the City, however, interpreted the statute to remove health benefit coverage to retirees, elected officials, affiliated service contractors, domestic partners of employees, and certain dependent children, all of whom were previously covered."

That's the crux of the issue and nobody is really picking up where the judge puts the blame for this whole mess.  A mess where he was put in charge of deciphering voter's intent - something he says was the city's job to do first. 

I originally wrote that the city attorneys office had chosen to interpret the ballot language to mean something it clearly didn't mean - to cut off benefits to anyone who wasn't an "employee."  Why did they do this?  Well, they wanted gay benefits and the voters refused to give it to them.  So, they decided that they would drag retirees and others into the mix with them to politicize the matter further and force the public's hand into giving up the fight.  In simpler terms - they took the retirees hostage and put them up as bullet shields. They said "if you shoot me, you gotta shoot them too!"

It was a political move that didn't have to take place - the judge says as much in his admission that the city's interpretation was key here.  City Representatives and city staff knew that they couldn't get gay benefits past the voters, so they pulled a group of people they thought the public would be more sympathetic to into the mess.  They hoped that they could piggyback gay benefits on retiree benefits.  It didn't work.

At any point after the vote was certified, the city attorneys office could have interpreted the voters' intent to mean what we all know it meant - not benefits for the unwed.  However, they didn't and decided to stick with their severely obtuse interpretation hoping to force the issue. The city attorneys office was willing to risk the benefits of retirees and others to make a political point. 

The judge ends up making a ruling he never really had to make in the first place. And the judge makes that point clear with that sentence I quoted from his opinion.. Hell, I made it clear way back when I saw what the city was trying to pull.  It matters none now, the judge has ruled! 

All of this could have been avoided if Representative Rachel Quintana had been allowed to save the day.  You may remember (you don't because you weren't paying attention) that Quintana pleaded with council to let her write an ordinance that would protect the reitrees and others from losing their benefits.  Do you know what happened?  Are you sitting down? 

CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO BAR QUINTANA FROM USING THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE TO HELP HER WRITE THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE PROTECTED RETIREES!!!!

Yes, you read that right - members of city council voted against Quintana'S solution to the problem because they did not want to disconnect gay benefits from the more popular retiree benefits.  Quintana was stifled and retirees lost their benefits in the end. 

The specific move to bar her from using the city attorneys office for advice in crafting the ordinance was aimed at making sure whatever she did produce would be as imprecise language wise as the ballot initiative put together by the Jesus Freaks.  

Members of city council knew they were gambling with retiree benefits and it didn't seem to bother them one bit.  It makes me sick (not really, I don't have that much of a personal connection to the issue, but I like the dramatic tone of that phrase).  Something could have done at every turn here to protect them, but instead, their benefits are gone in the name of gay rights.  

Do you want to know why some people become unsympathetic with certain political movements?  Because those movements can affect the lives of many people not directly connected to the issue.  There are 6,000 current employees working for the City and retirees that number in the thousands as well and they've had their hard earned benefits gambled on the comfort of 35 or so people who are just a little different than the rest of us. Most of them, from what I understand, are straight and not legally married and don't want to make any kind of legal declaration of marriage. 

Again, there we go killing the herd to save a single calf. 

The worst part?  Same sex benefits had always been available to city workers before.  It wasn't until progressive city council members decided to grandstand the issue for the world to see that the option was taken away.  Way to go - a giant leap backwards for civil rights because somebody had to pat themselves on the back so the whole world could see.

Do you want some good news?  We all need good news.  Unfortunately, I don't provide much of it on this blog. However, I do have some today.

It is very likely that the city  attorneys office will "rethink" their interpretation of the ballot initiative in order to preserve benefits for the retirees and others affected by their initial "political miscalculation." There will be a quiet move to make this all go away until they can fight the domestic partner benefit issue at another time.  

This blog will be the only evidence of the stunt your elected officials and city staff tried to pull.  You'll forget soon enough and so will everyone else.  I'm not the best person to deliver this information to you because I don't really present either side as likable and that is an important factor in inspiring you to go raise hell.  I've inflamed you, but in a controlled manner.  You see, you like when I call them "the gays," but hate when I call you a "Jesus Freak." (Or vice versa - I don't assume only one group reads this blog.) Your self examination (metaphorically speaking... I hope) based on my labeling of you will in the end over power your outrage over what your politicians pulled on your dime and you'll just move on fearing any more exploration of the issue will just lead to more self examinations.

I want to qualify all the statements above by saying that I'm not anti-gay because I'm not falling all over myself to make them "more equal" than the rest of us.  Do I care about having a "gay friendly" city?  No.  I'm more concerned with not having a "gay unfriendly" city or a "black unfriendly" city than I am about anyone getting the special treatment associated with a "(fill in the blank) friendly" city.  No city should be rolling out the red carpet for some and not others.  Either put it out there for everyone, or throw the whole damn thing in the trash and move on.

My thoughts on the Jesus Freaks are the same. I respect your right to worship as long as it doesn't infringe on others.  You're free to live within the rules set forth by your book as long as you don't try to force those rules on others.  I am as opposed to substituting our constitution with your Bible as I am with substituting it with the Koran, Torah or other holy book. 

My view on gay benefits is identical to Lyda Ness-Garcia's - take away all dependent coverage for city employees and make them pay 100 percent of it like we do in the private sector.  If Ness-Garcia is elected, she will be the final vote they need to strip city employees of this big fat benefit during the budget sessions this summer. 

You can insure anyone you're willing to foot the bill for in my opinion. 

Comments

[Pfft]

That judge is a straight up dickhead.

[Old Fart]

Interesting post David K and thanks for this blog post.

Like you, always felt that some at city hall were trying to pull something with this issue, so came to distrust them.

Tough that it's now a self inflected wound. Really don't care!

Again, thanks for your blog post.

[dot]

The judge merely pointed out the obvious. I want to meet the moron who thought Wiles was the most sympathetic person to talk about how he was promised health insurance for life..... If I had been on the fence, I know which side his interview would have landed me on.

[Lisa Turner]

Wiles is a double dipper and doesn't help the issue as people like the above poster will support this decision because of Wiles reply and not the issue of voting away rights and privileges of a group of people.

[Lisa Turner]

David the Ness position is the position she took from Rick Schecter. If you look at her pro gay stance her so called position does not wash.

[dot]

You inadvertently hit the nail on the head here. This is a privilege we are discussing and a very expensive one funded by the taxpayer at that. Honestly, I'm more offended at the benefits we're paying out to people like Wiles.

[city watcher]

This budget session council is going to have to make a difficult decision if the taxpayers scream about the city paying 70% of dependent and spouse coverage. Wish we could get that in the private sector. Oh wait, if Obamacare goes into effect in 2014 all private sector employers will be required to pay 65% of dependent and spouse premiums and 75% of employee only.