Payments In Lieu Of Health Insurance

There is no doubt that the cost of health insurance is of serious concern to us all.

Health insurance benefits make up a huge chunk of all municipal budgets. The Village of Seneca Falls pays the full cost of health insurance benefits for its full-time employees; retirees must pay a percentage of the cost.

Be that as it may, there are ways to contain the cost of municipal employee health insurance plans. The New York State Comptroller's Office provides some suggestions on their website. One of the suggestions is to offer "payments in lieu of health insurance" to employees who have access to health insurance from another source, usually through a spouse. These payments can provide a cost saving to taxpayers, especially when the payments are less than the full cost of the insurance plans provided by the municipality.

The Village of Seneca Falls offers this alternative to eligible union employees.

The Comptroller's Office states that a municipality can authorize offering employees a "payment in lieu of health insurance" in one of two ways - by passing a local law to provide it or by including it in a collective bargaining agreement. Seneca Falls Village union members have this language in their contracts.

Here is what the NYS Comptroller says about how municipalities may authorize payments in lieu of health insurance:

Payments in Lieu of Health Insurance Coverage

Because many employees have health insurance coverage available from a second source, such as benefits under a spouse's plan, offering the option of a cash payment in lieu of health insurance coverage can be beneficial to both your local government's budget and to the employee. Employers realize a savings by paying employees an amount less than the cost of health insurance premiums, and employees increase their income. These payments may be authorized by local law, or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

To qualify for the payment, employees must demonstrate that coverage is available from another source. Employees will want to compare their current plan with the alternate one to weigh the benefits and risks of switching plans. The municipality may also wish to contact the IRS concerning the income tax consequences it sees as a result of a payment in lieu of health insurance benefit.

The Village of Seneca Falls also offers payments in lieu of health insurance to its non-union employees. However, the Board authorized such payments by a simple resolution as part of adoption of its personnel policies on April 3, 2006, and not by a local law. Local laws, of course, require that the Board hold a public hearing.

Given the importance of this issue and the potential savings for Village taxpayers it would be prudent for the Board to review their program and ensure that it is properly authorized. If the simple Board resolution including these payments in the Village's Personnel Policy is inadequate to properly authorize them then a local law should be drafted, a public hearing on the draft law should be held, and if the Board deems it acceptable it could be passed.

First, though, there should be open discussion in advance regarding how many employees are eligible overall (both union and non-union), any alternatives regarding actual percentage of payments to be offered, and the potential savings to taxpayers.

One of the required duties of the Village Administrator is to review all Village insurances and make recommendations to the Board regarding alternatives. Have there been any reports regarding insurance coverages made to the Village Board?

Jumping the Gun

It is a curiosity, perhaps, to note that the Village Board has scheduled their annual reorganization meeting for Tuesday, April 1st at 6:30 p.m., with a Public Hearing on the 2008-09 Village Budget to take place at 7 p.m. the same evening.

It is a curiosity because it seems that the Board is jumping the gun regarding the commencement of their next terms of office. Regarding the commencement of the terms of village officers, NYS Village Law states:

S 3-302 Official year, terms of office,
extension or reduction of terms, biennial elections.

1. An official year begins at noon on the first Monday in the month
 following the date of the general village election or the date such
an election would have been held had elections been held annually.

2. The term of office of each elective village officer shall commence
at the start of the official year following his election; the term of
office of each officer appointed at the annual meeting of the board
of trustees shall commence at the start of the official year in which
he is appointed; and the term of office of each officer appointed at
any other time shall commence at the time of his appointment.

The first Monday in the month following the date of the general Village election is April 7th, which would also coincide with our Village's regular meeting date of the first Monday after the first Tuesday of each month.

The budget, by law, is not required to be adopted until May 1st and doesn't go into effect until June 1st. So it is also curious to note that the Public Hearing will take place so quickly, the same night as reorganization.

In any case, why are we in such a rush to begin new terms of office before they legally begin? What was wrong with waiting a few more days for the regular Board meeting date? And if there are questions about the budget, will the Board agree to adjourn the Public Hearing rather than formally close it so that more discussion can take place to address questions before May 1st?

Pull The Shades Up At Village Hall!

I have posted previously, more than once, about the need for our local elected officials to commit to open government, rather than just pay lip service to it when convenient or when running for re-election.

One of my posts was a reminder of Sunshine Week, March 16-22, a time to remember the laws and principles of open, accessible government across our nation. It is interesting, and certainly disheartening, to note that our Mayor and Village Board did nothing to reinforce their commitment to open government during March 2008. One week after Sunshine Week, the Village Board, in concert with the Town Board, clearly violated the Open Meetings Law in conducting an executive session to discuss a joint municipal facility!

My first reaction is, gee how hard is it for these elected officials? Do we have to hit them over the head with this every day in order to get them to comply with the law and to embrace "public" governance rather than "shadow" governance?

Sadly, apparently so. The Finger Lakes Times is correct in taking the Village and Town Boards to task for their secretive actions. The owners of the involved property that was rejected by the Boards were correct in taking them to task for their secretive actions.

While the Times article in today's paper points out that there are reasons for and against a joint municipal facility at any number of sites, the main point of the article should not be forgotten - that is, that the principles and legal requirements of open government were ignored by ten of our local elected officials in this matter. Ten people who have been given the privilege of the public's permission to conduct the day-to-day operations of our public facilities, to direct our community's progress, and ensure its continued welfare.

As we all know, trust, as well as respect, must be earned. How can we trust or respect the decisions of our elected officials if they believe that they must hide from the public while discussing our business, or consider the public a nuisance to be avoided in the decision making process?

As I posted after the March election, Mayor Smith would do herself and the public a tremendous service if she would finally come out from behind the shield she uses to avoid putting herself on record and vote on all matters that come before the Board.

I would ask this: if the Finger Lakes Times had not first reported that the Boards had conducted an illegal executive session, and if the owners of the rejected property had not followed up and contacted the local media and also questioned the use of a secret discussion of the joint facility, would the public have EVER learned anything about what Mayor Smith believes about the location of such a facility? Would the public have EVER learned any of the thought processes and considerations that went into deciding which facility or parcel of land would be best suited to OUR needs?

My guess is no, we would not. No amount of hedging and explaining by our elected officials about why the decision was made this way will suffice. And this is inexcusable. Their actions have put our community in danger of possible litigation. By holding an illegal executive session the Boards could be sued under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules to nullify their actions.

What was gained by risking potential litigation, the potential ire of taxpayers, and the embarrassment of failing to do basic things correctly?

Now that objections have been made public in the newspaper we learn that Mayor Smith wants to re-open the discussion, post-decision, to try to convince her team to change their minds. She should have made her arguments last Thursday during an open session, where she might have been able to convince all of those present, the public included.

I reiterate my challenge: pull up the shades at "Municipal" Hall!

A Challenge - Be Counted and Accountable!

Village elections may be over, but it is important that residents do not become disinterested or complacent about local government. We must continue to pay attention to the actions and statements of the Board.

As I posted previously, one of the complaints I heard time and again from people when I was going door-to-door is that the current mayor was not voting on resolutions before the Board. People felt this was an inappropriate skirting of responsibility, and merely a convenient way to avoid accountability.

Now that Mayor Smith has been afforded another four year term, I challenge her to take this opportunity to alter her governing style and provide taxpayers with the obvious way to hold her accountable for decisions and a way to validate her leadership: You asked residents to cast their votes for you; the least you can do for us, starting now Mayor Smith, is to cast a vote on each resolution that comes before the Board.

Campaign Assertions

No doubt many Seneca Falls residents have questions about claims that have been made by the candidates for village offices this election season. Many Seneca Falls residents could likely dispute some of the claims that have been made by each of the candidates. We all sit back and chuckle sometimes at the amazing feats of governing that suddenly appear in the weeks before election day!

Never before have we seen so many claims of accomplishments than in the 2008 village election, mainly from the three incumbents of course. In the 2nd Ward we received a six page listing (and listing, and listing, and listing....) of accomplishments of the Board. It appeared to be mostly just copied off portions of departmental reports stapled together. If nothing else, it's good to know the village's employees are working so hard!

An example of one issue that all of the candidates seem to be focusing on, and taking credit for, is the joint Town/Village Comprehensive Plan. Candidates have touted this accomplishment and have pointed to it as a mandate for lower taxes and consolidation of services. But the Plan itself doesn't mandate anything. The Plan, as its name implies, is truly "comprehensive" in scope. It covers all aspects of community functions and development. A Comprehensive Plan's purpose is to guide the future growth and development of Seneca Falls through specific actions that can result in a better future for our community. It suggests changes to laws and policies, as well as suggests actions and partnerships that go beyond just the Town/Village relationship. The candidates have not focused on how they propose to implement actions included in the Plan. What they have focused on is only the results of the resident survey. The survey showed that the majority of residents want lower taxes and want the town and village to determine where services can be shared and costs can be reduced. This cannot be where the discussion ends!

Obviously if a candidate points to the results of a survey and says "yeah, that's what we want and that's what I will work toward" it sounds good.

But the hard part - and the part that usually becomes a stopping point for elected officials - is actually utilizing a Comprehensive Plan's recommendations. When it comes time to enact changes, or budget for services called for in the Plan, well, the enthusiasm often wanes. This is true not only for Comprehensive Plans, but other plans and studies that are generated by municipalities.

This is why taxpayers all too often can complain that studies and plans just collect dust on a shelf.

I would suggest to our candidates that the greatest accomplishments will come from thumbing past the Table of Contents and Introduction and then starting the work.

Spending Our Tax Dollars

A few examples of how Village taxpayer dollars have been spent in the last four years:

• In 2005, $2,000 was spent to purchase new office furniture for the Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer. There was nothing wrong with the existing furniture in the office, in fact it was relatively new. Most Village department heads and other staff have used the same office furniture for years and years, being mindful of controlling costs. Purchases such as this - for replacement of equipment that is still well-functioning, such as office furniture - used to be discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

• The Village sponsors annual Christmas parties for Board members and employees at the Seneca Falls Community Center. Free breakfast buffet, beverages, and prizes are included, paid for by taxpayers. There's also a visit from Santa. The meal is provided by the food service company Sodexho through the New York Chiropractic College. This is arranged by Third Ward Trustee Petroccia, who works for NYCC. These parties are called "Christmas organizational day" or "organizational meeting/Christmas party" by the Village. Adding the words "organizational meeting" allows them to get past state laws that prohibit spending taxpayer funds on entertainment and gifts. These parties cost taxpayers a total of $806.35 during the holidays of 2005 and 2006. Interestingly, only $120.85 of that total amount was spent at a downtown restaurant. Christmas and other parties have been held each year, for an unknown total cost. While holiday celebrations are a nice part of a work environment, these should not be held at taxpayer expense.

• The south canal wall project was not originally embraced by the Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation. They had planned a nearly $1 million extension of the north wall up to the Community Center that would have been finished in 2007 (see email at left - names removed to shield state employees from any fallout). After the state Senator intervened the project was re-directed to the south wall in 2004. Without public discussion at any public Board meeting Mayor Smith represented to state officials that the Village would spearhead the project after the Thruway Authority refused to pay for work on the south wall. The Village does not own any property at the south canal wall between the Ovid and Bridge Street bridges. The NYS Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation owns the land on which the new ornamental lights and boater service pedestals are located, back to twenty feet. Beyond the twenty feet the land is owned by Seneca Knit Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the Seneca County Industrial Development Agency. Canal Street legally ends at the corner of Center Street. The Village deeded over the remainder of the old Canal Street to the Mill property years ago and it is now owned by SKDC. The Village stated in their application to NYSDOT for a member item grant that this was a "highway reconstruction" project to improve Canal Street. The Village does not have any kind of agreement with the Thruway Authority for use and maintenance of the property. There is no proper access to the walkway and pedestals; the service pedestals are not operational - no power or water for boaters when they tie up. But the ornamental lights operate and have been lit every night since September 2005. Village taxpayers pay the electric bills. But note - it is improper for a municipality to provide such service on property it does not own. NYSEG bills from the meter for the lights show that it costs about $225 a month (in 2005) to run them. For 30 months at an average $225 per month Village taxpayers have paid about $6,750 to light "the wall to nowhere."

These are just a few examples that were relatively easy to find. Village Board members continuously proclaim their fiscal conservatism, bragging about budget cuts, protecting the taxpayers, and watching every dollar. Obviously, they all could do a better job.

Sunshine Week - March 16-22, 2008

This week is the celebration of "Sunshine Week" across America.

Sunshine Week, an initiative of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, focuses a spotlight on open government at the national, state, and local levels. The basic idea: government of, by, and for the people must be open and accessible. The presumption is that government records and meetings are open. Very few exceptions to this rule are allowed.

We are fortunate that New York State provides easy and accurate guidance regarding questions on open government, open meetings, and the accessibility of public records. A simple phone call or email to the Department of State’s Committee on Open Government usually results in a prompt response, even in writing if desired. This is a free service. You can also click here to find the Committee's page of videos on NYS Open Meetings Law and FOIL.

There has been a disturbing trend in recent years, on the part of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government, to conveniently ignore the basic premise of open government. One excuse or another for this is often given, but the public is usually told that these transgressions against open government are either inadvertent, or worse - are for our own good. While excuses are sometimes legitimate, more often they simply contribute to a government more comfortable operating in the shadows. One of the greatest threats to our form of government is the quiet chipping away of the very civil liberties we blindly assume our government is protecting and promoting.

When fulfilling a request for public records is unnecessarily delayed, denied, or delayed for research into the accessibility of the requested records, open government is being thwarted. When chance meetings and/or social occasions involving a quorum of a public body develop into discussions about public business, open government is being thwarted. When government officials deceive the public about the purpose of a closed meeting, open government is being thwarted. Even candidates for office who profess to support open government all too often succumb to the convenience of the shadows once elected, thwarting the very principle of the public’s right to know and participate in its government. When this happens, every voter is cheated; every vote is based on deception.

Sunshine Week is aptly named. Sunshine clears away the shadows. Sunshine is a natural disinfectant, used for ages when cleaning house. Sunshine Week reminds us that it is the people who made the government, and the people have a right to know what its government is doing and how it makes decisions. When elected officials present “pre-determined” decisions and policies, the public is being cheated out of its part in the deliberative process. Occasionally there is public outcry to “hold our elected officials accountable” in one issue or another. But it is the public’s responsibility to remain actively vigilant and aware by asking questions and making sure there are answers and an open and free venue for discussion. And it’s incumbent upon government officials to accept their responsibility to follow the law and embrace the public as partners in open government, rather than adversaries or obstacles to agendas.