Keep in mind these council members are part-time (under 30 hours by Jeffersonville standards) and Jeffersonville part time city workers who work under 30 hours DO NOT qualify for the city's health care package ....yet City council members DO qualify for the benefits.
The BatBlog wonders why the special treatment for the council members compared to other city part time workers. What makes these "special" benefits most disturbing is this councils propensity of making decisions that are claimed to be fiscally responsible and saving tax dollars. The biggest and most prominent was the decision to eliminate Jeffersonville City court introduced by Matt "LapDog" Owen all in the name of saving tax dollars.
Not only is this council largely hypocritical but they also aren't too interested in the taxpayers concerns on this matter. The BatBlog has obtained copies of e-mails sent by several council members and none seemed too interested in making changes in the current policy. One council member even sent a "cease and desist " warning to not contact him at his personal e-mail address....Jeez
The BatBlog believes that if the council doesn't want to give up this lucrative benefit in the name of fiscal responsibility...(don't hold your breath on that one) then they should at least pass a resolution so that ALL part -time city workers should be able to partake in city's health insurance plan...not just this privileged, self serving city council...
As I mentioned before, the county council eliminated insurance for commissioners, and the council. We are part time, and shouldn't get insurance. Aren't Republicans supposed to be against this sort of thing?
ReplyDeleteI meant to say county, not county council. Yes, the commissioners eliminated the insurance. The council asked that they do this.
DeleteThe Citizens of Clark County are being fooled by Clark County's own RINO BOSS TWEED, his Cabal and dispensible, useful idiots!
ReplyDeleteNo section of government should have the power to grant itself these type of perks and benefits.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness this was enacted by an earlier counsel I believe. Not that it is right just they didn't vote it for themselves. Also well done by the county council to eliminate these type of perks.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt it originated with an earlier council. But the question remains why this council continues this perk. They could eliminate it --- if they want to! Will they??
ReplyDeleteYeah I know CCC member, but this should be brought up for a vote...lets see who the real Rep. fiscal conservatives are, if any we have any on the council. My guess and by the tone of the e-mail responses on this...they (council) aren't too keen on letting this information out. I would be shocked if they would ever let this come up for vote...They would show their true colors...And to Kevin Vissing and the County council Good Job !!! for doing the right thing...
ReplyDeleteLet's March at the next city council meeting with signs! Any takers?
ReplyDeleteThat would be interesting Anon., I would like to see someone get on the agenda of the public comments section at the next meeting, just to see their responses and reactions. Would make for great theater....
ReplyDeleteLet's stop elevating the County Council and Mr. Vissing for being so magnanimous with our tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteThere is a world of difference between the City and County Council.
The County only meets once a month and has very few (any?) committees, while the City has numerous (planning and zoning, finance, UEZ, redevelopment, etc.) AND acts as the parks authority and negotiates contracts with police and fire.
Moreover, the County may have ended their insurance benefit, but they do collect a retirement, which we (taxpayers) get to pay for- forever. While I believe the city voted this benefit away a few years ago. (but would have to check).
Point is not to say the county shouldn't receive a retirement or that the city doesn't deserve health benefits, but only to end this non-deserving love fest.
Our meetings last some times 3 hours. I serve on the solid waste, Recycling board, County Redevelopement, 4H Extension board. We also have extra budget meetings. These are all day meetings that I take vacation days from work to attend.
DeleteI usually pay the majority of my campaign expences. I'm typically the only councilmen that purchases an animal at the 4-H fair. I attend numerous fund raisers thru out the county to help those who are less fortunate.
Not complaining, just letting you know I participate!
My only comment to that would would be , is if a the part time council is "deserving" of the health benefits then so is the part time workers for the city of Jeffersonville....
ReplyDeleteAlso the hypocritic stance of economics determining the city court abolishment is disturbing...
The county commissioners,
ReplyDeletenot the county council,
ended the insurance benefit for the council and the commissioners.
Yes if Jeff court was eliminated for financial considerations then insurance benefits should be eliminated as well.
ReplyDeleteMost companies that have had pension plans in the past have eliminated them. That is another thing that needs to be looked concerning city and government workers. Provide a 401 k as an alternative to the pension.If the bottom line is saving tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteThe general theme here of equating elective officials and part-time employees is, in my view, an unfair comparison.
ReplyDeleteCandidates spend thousands of dollars and countless hours just trying to get the job and then have to do it all again every 2 or 4 years. The idea that elected officials should just donate their time and energy is just foolishness.
People are (obviously) entitled to an opposing view, but I want my officials to be compensated commensurate to the responsibility they carry, not the time they spend.
While I agree that some candidates spend hours running for office, they do not necessarily spend a lot of their own money. Many receive donations from their party and supporters -- you would have to look at their campaign finance reports to know how much was spent. However, regardless what was spent, does that mean that the taxpayers should give health/dental/vision insurance to people who have FULL-TIME jobs?? Did they run for office just to get insurance?? If so, then they ran for the wrong reason. Not once during the campaign season did I hear any candidate say that they were running to get insurance ---- or get insurance for their family. If the Council position was a full-time position -- like the mayor, recorder, auditor, assessor, clerk, etc., then I could agree they deserve the benefits. But when they are able to retain their FULL-TIME jobs and also serve on the Council, then it is despicable that they expect the taxpayers to pay for insurance for themselves AND their families. That is just pure GREED. Many people "moonlight" with a second job -- but it is their FULL-TIME employer that provides them benefits. Where is the "fiscal responsibility"? I thought the Council was supposed to look out for the taxpayers --- but it appears they are looking out for themselves. Shameful.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete"The Citizens of Clark County
are being fooled by Clark County's
own RINO BOSS TWEED, his Cabal and dispensible, useful idiots!"
That poor TG gets blamed for everything!
County Council pays 3% of their salery towards Perf. A councilmen is vested after 10 years. Most don't stay on that long. I have been told the pension for a vested councilmen would be under $100 per month.
ReplyDeleteThe council and employees used to get that for no Charge. About 5 years ago we ended the 3% for free.
I find it disturbing that an elected city councilman having a full time job with insurance would forgo that benefit to have taxpayers foot the bill.
I have no problem with the city council pay as long as it doesn't increase for many years.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Kevin the pension is a very small pittance compared to the costs associated with health care. Very few will achieve 10 years and those that do pay into the fund.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a good point HT, however a pension is paid for LIFE vs a health plan paid for while serving. That alone is a huge difference. Apples and oranges if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteIs a pension not for LIFE? Health insurance is surely only offered during the years an individual is serving on the council. Apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteOnly one on the county council Barb Hollis has reached 10 years on the council. She has served us well. She also worked for the city for many years. She was getting Perf anyway.
ReplyDeleteAll of the city council but one is taking insurance.
Some of those taking city insurance already were included in that benefit at their employment. They are making the city taxpayer pay, even though they already had health insurance at work.
We are talking about costs to the taxpayers. Health insurance is being paid every year for potentially 9 councilpersons (City) ...only 1 didn't take the plan this year. Versus a small pension to ONLY councilmen with 10 years or more on the council (County).
ReplyDeleteI don't have the numbers (maybe Kevin can help us out) but very few county councilmen are on the council for the 10 years to qualify for the pension which is less than $100.00 a month according to K.V.
Yes it is apples to oranges when you consider the cost to taxpayers. With the spiraling cost of healthcare....taxpayers are shelling out astronomically more money for health benefits than the small pittance payed to very few councilmen vested after 10 years.
Yes health insurance is only paid while serving, but there will always be 9 councilpersons every year that we the taxpayers are on the hook for. Your argument doesn't hold water...
The City offers 2 health plans -- a PPO and a HDHP. The cost to the taxpayers per month for councilmen who take the PPO plan with dental/vision is $1,528.44. The cost to the taxpayers for the HDHP plan is $1,904.87. That equals $18,341.28 on a yearly basis for PPO and $22,858.44 for the HDHP plan. This is in addition to their salary of $15,000 a year ($17,000 for the president).
ReplyDeleteTherefore, over a 4 year term, the taxpayers will pay approximately $80,000 in benefits to a councilman plus $60,000 in salary -- that is $140,000 for each councilperson who takes the family plan (7 of them currently do). One councilman takes the single plan which costs the taxpayers $674.41 for the PPO plan and $847.37 for the HDHP plan. So this councilperson is costing the taxpayers roughly (depending on which plan he/she takes) $9100 a year plus their salary of either $15,000 or $17,000.
This means that over a 4 year term --- the taxpayers are shelling out well over $1,000,000 in salary and benefits to 9 people on the Council. And ALL of them except one have full-time jobs.
If a county councilman serves more than 10 years (and few do) and is lucky enough to collect a pension of $100 per month -- which they contributed to -- that means that the councilman receives $1200 per year. If the councilman retires at say age 50 and receives $1200 a year for life -- and lives to be 85 -- then their total pension received would be $42,000. BUT if you compare that to the City council --- the health insurance benefits received by the city councilman in just 4 years is more than $80,000. Some council members are now in their third terms -- so by the end of 12 years, the taxpayers would have given them over $250,000 in health care benefits. Outrageous!
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in 2015 the PPO family plan cost the taxpayers $1298.69 per month and in 2016 it costs $1444.08 per month -- an increase of 11.2%. In 2015 the HDHP family plan cost taxpayers $1374.01 per month and in 2016 it costs $1820.51 per month --- an increase of 32.5%. The Council negotiates the rates and the amount that is paid by the employee vs. the City (taxpayers). Even though the rates rose significantly for 2016, the Council did NOT pass any of that increase along to the employee. We, the taxpayers, absorbed 100% of it. This is what happens when the Council can negotiate their own salaries/benefits. Seems to me the taxpayers are the ones on the losing end of the stick.
You can bet if the mayor came to the council and asked for health benefits be provided for part-time city workers it would be rejected in the name of fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty apparent who this council is serving.... themselves..