OCR Text |
Show Finding a Better Way: Salt Lake City Council's Broadening of Employee Health Benefits Dave Buhler cast.)-1 wondered since that time if there weren't a better, less divisive way to approach this issue. If so, perhaps the rancor could be left behind. One of the things you quickly learn as a member of the city council-or any legislative body-is that to get things done, you must work with others. Within a day or two of the debate at the County, I telephoned my colleague on the City Council, Jill Remington Love, and suggested that maybe it was time we on the City Council take a look at the issue. I called Jill because I knew she was sensitive and supportive of issues important to the gay/lesbian communities, and that she had been interested in the benefits issue for some time. In this first of what would come to be many discussions of the issue, I floated my idea to Jill. "Why not allow an employee who shares a household with a parent, sibling, or long term platonic roommate, to add them to their insurance, as well as if they lived with someone whom they consider to be a 'domestic partner3'?" Jill was intrigued, and went to work with a member of the council staff to research the issue. The first question to be answered was whether the City Council could do this by ordinance or whether it was an executive function under the sole purview of the mayor. In the midst of the research, Jill discovered that Mayor Rocky Anderson, an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage, was also looking into whether he could impose such a policy change by executive order and without a council vote. The advice from the city attorney to both the council and the mayor was, basically, since benefits were now determined by the mayor (without a city ordinance proscribing how they would be offered) the mayor was free to do so by executive order.4 However, if the council acted and defined benefits by ordinance, that would override an executive order. In August, Mayor Anderson floated his proposal, and, to his credit, shared in advance with the City Council his draft executive order. His plan was to treat unmarried couples as if they were married-for insurance purposes-if they lived together for at least six months and stated they intended to remain together indefinitely. It specifically excluded family members. Jill met with the mayor, and asked him to work with the council to craft something that would have broad support. He refused, preferring to do it his way. Throughout the summer and early fall, Jill and I visited informally with other council members to understand their concerns and to share what was now our joint approach. When the Mayor issued his executive order in September 2005, understandably, gay-rights groups applauded him and conservative traditional family-rights groups jeered and threatened legal and/or legislative action. Our goal on the council was to find common ground, something that would benefit more employees and that nearly everyone in our community could support. In signing the order, the mayor said "It's done" (Rocky Signs, 2005). Actually, it was far from finished. While Mayor Anderson's executive order was a hit with those who favor advancing the gay rights agenda, in socially conservative Utah, I knew that it would not stand. It would be challenged in court, and if the courts upheld it, the legislature would intervene to restrict our ability as a city to provide these ben' efits. As I predicted to my colleagues-both the courts5 and the legislature became involved. Ultimately the decision for the city council members would be "Do you want to make a statement, or do you want to actually help people?" There was a perception by at least some in the community that the City Council was less likely than the County Council to approve health coverage that would extend to unmarried partners. Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, Transgender Community Center was quot' ed by the Tribune as saying it may be "more difficult" to get the City Council's approval than it had been the County (Rocky Pushes, 2005), where it failed by a single vote. Had the old paradigm been embraced-equating benefits to a right of something very close to marriage, she was probably right. But by looking at the issue in a new way, through a different lens, consensus could be found. The Mayor's Office encouraged supporters of gay rights to call council members to urge our support of his executive order. I received several of these constituent calls in support of the mayor. When I would tell callers that I felt the mayor's proposal had some merit but that I was concerned he was still excluding people, callers were surprised. "For example, I 3 Some states have provided a legal designation available to same-sex or unmarried straight couples as "domestic partners." Utah is not one of these states. However, the term is often used to describe these relationships, and I use it here even though, from a legalistic point of view, there is no such thing in the state of Utah. 4 One aspect of the Mayor's plan-bereavement leave-was subject to council approval as it is defined by ordinance. 5 The City's health insurance carrier, Public Employees Health Plan, decided that they wanted a court ruling to give guidance that the Mayor's plan was legal under state law and the state constitution before they would implement it. Soon thereafter a conservative "pro-family" organization based in Arizona, the Alliance Defense Fund, filed an action to contest it. Once the Council's plan was adopted, the Alliance Defense Fund withdrew their action. Surprisingly, and probably showing an abundance of caution, PEHP continued to ask for the court's declaratory judgment before going forward in providing coverage. On May 12, 2006, Judge Stephen L-Roth ruled in favor of the City Council's plan in a declaratory judg' ment, concluding that it does not violate either state law or the state constitution. "While dependent coverage in employee benefit programs has traditionally been limited to spouses and dependent children...as a practical matter single employees may have relation' ships outside of marriage, whether motivated by family feeling, emO' tional attachment or practical considerations, which draw on their resources to provide the necessities of life including health care;" Judge Roth wrote in his ruling. The judge also noted "...employee health benefits are first and foremost simply a perquisite of employ ment" and result from an employer-employee relationship not a mar' riage relationship. (See Ruling In the Matter of the Utah State Retirement Board's Trustee Duties and Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 4 of 2006. Civil No. 050916879, Judge Stephen L. Roth, Third District Court, Utah,) It is unknown how the court would have ruled on the Mayor's plan. However, had they upheld it, it seems very likely that the Alliance Defense Fund would have appealed. 86 |