August 3, 2009
Typically, major city policy changes are presented for discussion at a regular Tuesday El Paso City Council meeting where they are cussed and discussed by the public and the council.
But at a budget hearing last Thursday, the council briefly discussed and then voted to extend the city’s health and medical benefits to same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples beginning Sept. 1. (Download a copy of the policy below)
While it wasn’t a decision expected to have a significant affect on the city’s already enormous, self-funded medical benefits budget, it was a significant social policy change for local governments in El Paso.
After all, cohabiting was still referred to as “living in sin” not that long ago, and same-sex couples living together wasn’t talked about much at all.
Which is not to say it’s a bad thing, Seinfeld would add hastily.
The proposal didn’t come from the city staff, but from the liberal wing of City Council, which has talked about transparency for some years now but has a way of going opaque when the need arises.
Extending medical benefits to domestic partners was approved without a pre-announced policy discussion or news articles, TV stories or rabbis, pastors or tax nuts telling folks that on Thursday at 10 a.m. the council would consider giving a privilege that, historically, only married couples had enjoyed to anyone who wants to live together and can meet three of six conditions.
The vote was 6-1. The council’s once loyal opposition to liberal spending, city Reps. Eddie Holguin and Rachel Quintana, sided with the majority. City Rep. Carl Robinson cast the only no vote no and said it was for budget reasons.
I called Robinson several times and left messages saying I’d like to ask him about his vote, but he didn’t called back. Is this a Northeast thing?
It was a precedent-setting decision in a socially conservative city that other local governments will probably follow.
Having said that, I should add that Newspaper Tree’s very unofficial poll on the issue is running 68 percent to 32 in favor of the council’s action, which may say more about our readership than about El Paso.
The county’s Risk Pool Board, I was told, considered adding domestic partners to the county’s health plan Monday and will make a recommendation to Commissioners Court, where the issue may or may not face opposition.
And the El Paso school district’s staff is looking at adding domestic partners to its health plan in 2012.
El Paso became the third major city in Texas to approve the benefit, joining Austin and Dallas.
The city expects its health plan will cost taxpayers and city employees $35 million in the year starting Sept. 1.
Adding an estimated 45 domestic partners to the plan next year is expected to cost about $175,443 or about 0.5 percent of the medical plan’s total cost.
The city doesn’t know for sure, however, and so it has bracketed the potential costs: $127,755 to $287,074 is what taxpayers may pay while employee contributions could range from $30,487 to $72,072.
The combined range starts at $272,711 and goes up to a potential peak of $390,445.
To qualify, a couple must have lived together for six months, intend to stay together and be able to demonstrate their financial interdependence by meeting three of the following six conditions:
-- A joint property deed or mortgage or leasehold interest in property
-- Sharing ownership of a vehicle
-- Having the same address on their drivers licenses
-- Having a joint checking or credit account
-- A designation of the other person as beneficiary of a life insurance policy or retirement benefits or primary beneficiary of a partner’s will
-- Assignment of a durable power of attorney or health care power of attorney.
Looking over those conditions, it seems quite possible that a young couple, say, with a child, might not easily meet three of those conditions. But if they were married, oc course, they wouldn’t have to.
If I had been on council, I might have voted against this policy, but I would have wanted to hear from constituents first. Rep. Holguin always says he will do whatever his constituents say. I wonder how many contacted him on this.
On the other hand, it could very well be argued that whatever it takes to get medical coverage for people in America is OK, particularly in a city with the highest percentage of uninsured residents of any major city in Texas, which has more people uninsured than any other state.
Someone might have said that.
How many uninsured people are there in the United States, the only country where employers are expected to provide the bulk of medical benefits for the population? The latest estimate is about 46 million, with conservatives saying about 10 million of them are non-citizens.
Someone might have said that, too.
When I asked City Manager Joyce Wilson why the domestic partners wasn’t put on a Tuesday agenda for discussion and a vote on the policy, she stepped away from the question as if I had a gun on her.
How she wrote email response with her hands raised, I don’t know, but she said, “I can’t respond.”
Joyce Wilson never says, “I can’t respond.” But she did this time, and went on to write, “The request came from council and we advised that we could address it as part of the budget process since (it) had $$$ implications. Every one seemed o.k. with that.
“Other similar requests were addressed that way – boards and commission review and sunset; additional arraignment court; etc. The council seemed o.k. with this.”
I asked city Rep. Susie Byrd the same question: why wasn’t it put on the regular agenda for a vote?
“It was pretty well publicized,” she said, adding that two people did address the issue at the council’s budget session Thursday.
“I’ve had a lot of emails about it,” she said.
I asked her to send me all of them. She sent me nine.
Emailed comments on medical benefits policy
“Please vote ‘no’ to domestic partner benefits. Thank you,” wrote Rita Licano.
David Wise, a Westside resident, wrote, “The prospect of my tax dollars being spent in this manner offends my sense of morality and decency, and no doubt leads this city down the slippery slope toward God knows what.
“But even beyond the morality issues, our City is struggling with a budget shortfall, freezing most city employees' salaries, cutting services, raising fees, and asking our brave police officers and firefighters to make salary concessions. As such, find it unbelievable that our city leaders would even consider such a bone-headed proposal."
Maria Portillo wrote in caps, “Please vote ‘no’ to offer benefits to domestic partners. This is another way to weaken traditional marriage.”
Tony and Madeline Jabor wrote, “I am urging you, our elected representatives, to heed the wishes of the citizens of El Paso and vote NO on the granting of benefits to domestic partners and people living together without the benefit of marriage.
“By passing these types of laws, you weaken the family structure which is already under tremendous assault by the so-called progressive movement in this country. El Paso has always been known as a city that values family, and this politically correct ploy has no place in this city. City Council should have more important issues to tend to than these types of social restructuring.”
Jorge Wiesinger wrote Byrd the exact same letter as the Jabors.
Cathy Ronson took a pretty hard-line approach, saying, “I interpret your response to be that City Council condones both homosexual and heterosexual sinful conduct – that City Council condones both sodomy and fornication.”
Mr. and Mrs. P. Branham, an Eastside couple, wrote, “Please vote no or delete the domestic partner benefits from the proposed budget.”
Katy Bean forwarded a letter from someone else that spoke against the proposed domestic partners policy and said she agreed with it. [This paragraph was corrected at 8:45 a.m., Aug. 4 to correct Katy Bean's position.]
On Friday, after the vote, David Veloz wrote Byrd, saying, “Thank you for voting in favor of including domestic partners in city employee insurance coverage. Good Job!”
So, before the council voted, Byrd heard from 10 people who knew about the domestic partners measures and went to the trouble to oppose it in writing and none who supported it. She later disclosed that she had also received about 20 form letters on the issue. It's probably safe to say they, too, were in opposition.
We have a pretty brave City Council. Its members have faced lots of opposition and proposed some big changes in the past four years that have upset a lot of individuals and interest groups. The council has waded patiently through hours of public testimony and debate before voting on important issues.
This was different, and the question is why.