You may remember that a judge recently handed down his decision on the gay benefits question at the city. Proponents of gay benefits took the judge's decision to mean that the Holy Rollers had stripped retirees and other associated city employees of their health benefits. I told you that the only people doing any stripping of any benefits was the city's attorneys and city council.
Well... I was right. You were wrong. No apology needed. I'm used to correcting all of you by now.
On the coming Tuesday agenda is item 8F in the "introductions" section and it contains the wording to fix the little problem caused by the city attorney'sobtuse interpretation of the ballot initiative. I told you all along that the fix to the problem was easy - write an ordinance that puts everybody but the gays and unmarried back into the pot. Representative Quintana tried to do that! She was blocked by a vote of the council in order to put the retirees' fate on the back of the gays.
You can see the agenda item for yourself HERE.
Some of you owe Pastor Tom Brown and apology for accusing him of taking benefits from retirees. The agenda item proves that his ballot initiative didn't do any such thing. You can only give back something you took away - the city took away retiree benefits and now they are giving them back. Pastor Brown's ballot initiative took away gay benefits and the city can't give them back.
I told you that the city would swoop in at the last minute and make things better for the retirees. nobody was going to let them lose their benefits.
Just remember that Representative Quintana tried to do exactly what is being done now - months ago. Pat her on the back for being a real advocate for the people who got screwed in this deal. People who wanted to play politics scared the hell out of a lot of old people (retirees) in order to try and force a judge's hand on gay benefits. That's not right.
Wanna bet.
Posted by: Texaswoman | June 04, 2011 at 09:29 PM
IT'S GIVING BENEFITS TO GAY PARTNERS AGAIN!
It reads to give back everyone who had benefits before the Nov ballot the same benefits they had. Domestic partner benefits were allowed before Nov. so they will get them back with this ordinance. Please correct me if I misread this!
Posted by: Annonimus | June 04, 2011 at 10:59 PM
You misread it. It's only got to "define employees" and it appears they will save health insurance for retirees (up to age 65) and certain other city/PSB employees. I don't believe it gives health insurance benefits to elected officials. I don't think elected officials are employees anyway and they should not receive benefits either.
The city is in a mess on this one. In order to not invalidate the "vote of the people" they would have to not pay one thin dime of any employee's dependent or spouse coverage. But then that creates all sorts of problems for them when you put the math to it. Spend more money for 12-15 domestic and common law spouses so they can have coverage or get over it and understand the voters spoke. I understand the issue is consuming all the progressives/liberals in town. They are just beside themselves that domestic partner benefits are not available. This city could blow a hole in its budget, file bankruptcy, etc but the progressive/liberals (whites) in this this town will focus on the fact there are no domestic partner benefits. Sad.
Posted by: honor the voters will | June 05, 2011 at 09:04 PM
ness had a good idea on this one. make the city employees pay the full amount for dependent coverage. then it doesnt matter if they add a partner, horse, or dog to the policy because its coming out of their paycheck.
Posted by: chapter 7 | June 06, 2011 at 10:20 AM