On May 28 and June 7 I reported on this web log that Mayor Higgins had altered Northampton’s group health insurance eligibility requirements in November 2005 and again in January 2006. This change retroactively removed from health insurance eligibility former employees that had ten or more years of service. It was understood by these employees when they left the city’s employ that they could re-enter the city’s health insurance program when they retired. Higgins altered the policy retroactively rather than prospectively, that is from this moment forward, without seeking an opinion from the city’s insurance advisory board.
During the city council meeting of June 21 Mayor Higgins made the comments below regarding this policy. Higgins mentions Mr. Robinson who is the former long time manager of the Academy of Music which is run by a 501c3 nonprofit organization and is not managed directly by the city of Northampton. According to Higgins Mr. Robinson was allowed by the city to enter the city’s group health insurance plan during his 30+ years of employment, but was evidently rejected from entering the city’s pension plan on numerous occasions by the retirement board. Higgins is now seeking legislative approval for Mr. Robinson to retroactively enter the city pension system by making a one time lump sum payment to the city. In an unusual move during that discussion Mayor Higgins segued to the insurance topic as it had been mentioned by Florence resident Gene Tacy during the council’s public comment period. Generally remarks delivered during the public comment period are not addressed.
Mayor Higgins:
“And there was one other thing that came up around the issue of um health insurance. Mr.-Mr. Robinson is on unemployment right now and ah we-have, we-are, we-have looked at the eligibility of people who have retired from the city system and uh we had a circumstance where people could work for the city from the age 20 to age 30, go somewhere else and work for 40 years or 35 years and then come back and take health insurance from the city. Very, very costly benefit and we’ve tried to tighten up those rules so that the health insurance money that we spend is on the people who have committed their life of service to the city. In that transition there have been some folks who weren’t on the health insurance at the moment of their retirement and we’re working with those cases to try and make sure that they’re taken care of but the bigger question, because looottts of people have worked for the city for a short period of time, ten years or so, and then go somewhere else. Um I’m not sure it was prudent for us to have an open-ended health insurance entitlement for anybody who had ever worked for the city for ten years. And you know how hard we’ve struggled to contain our health insurance costs (she smiles). We need to-to co-continue to do that for our retirees and for our active employees so that we’re not spending huge amounts of money on health insurance (counting digits on her fingers) which means we have struggled to provide services here and to um, give people fair pay increases, so yes, there is some-there are some issues around retiree health that we’re working on and I’m happy to talk to anybody about any individual circumstances that they know of, about that individual retiree to make sure that nobody has been caught in this transition to a more, um, ????how-how do I want to say this, a-a system that is really um tighter and more ah I think equitable to the current employees. But I’m happy to talk to anybody, if you know of retirees that have trouble we can-we can certainly talk about it.”
Higgins’ comments raise some concerns. It is true that the city had a circumstance that someone could work for the city from the age of 20 to 30, leave and then return 35 years later to re-enter the city insurance system when they retired. This was an example Higgins citied as justification for her move as though it was a frequent occurrence. She indicated "looottts" of people have worked for the city and then go somewhere else and added that this is a "very, very costly benefit." The mayor did not provide specific cost figures nor did city councilors request them after she spoke.
It is also true under her new policy that the city now has a circumstance that someone could work for the city from the age of 18 to 64 and lose insurance eligibility by not directly retiring from the system. After 46 years of service if someone chose to work another job for a year and then retire, they would lose eligibility. Higgins referred to the new policy as more equitable to current employees.
Who could argue that this Machiavellian maneuver will not induce loyalty from city employees? The viewpoint Higgins has offered is that she cannot create a prospective group health insurance eligibility policy. She asserts that she cannot "grandfather" former employees with ten or more years of service into the health insurance system because a legal opinion she sought states that she must treat everyone the same.
However, in Mr. Robinson’s case she evidently feels that setting policies that include an element of retro-activity is not treating people differently. Moreover, if the pension scheme is approved could current employees now opt out of the city pension system presuming they will be able to opt back in later if things don’t work out in their lives financially as they might expect? Is this not a scenario she is trying to avoid with the new health insurance rules? From a policy perspective attempting to allow someone not classified as a city employee to retroactively enter the city pension system while retroactively removing from eligibility former city employees with ten or more years of service from the group health plan seems inconsistent to put it politely.
On Friday June 22 I contacted the mayor’s office and sent her 12 follow up questions via email based on her above comments because in my view she raised more questions than she answered. She had a busy schedule though and indicated through one of her aides that she would be able to address the questions the second week of July. Due to my scheduling commitments we set a date of July 16 for a follow up interview. I can only hope the topic remains fresh on her mind.
