Police Association Against Domestic Benefits Initiative; City Explains Initiative’s Impact
The El Paso Municipal Police Officers Association has taken a stand against a ballot initiative that would rescind health benefits for unmarried and gay partners of city employees.
The proposed ordinance has been placed on the ballot by a local religious group.
The police association is not against the ordinance for moral or religious reasons. The organization just wants to make sure retirees continue getting health insurance – something they’re concerned might not happen if the ordinance passes.
“I don’t support their position but I do support their right to get this on the ballot,” City Rep. Steve Ortega said.
The proposed ordinance, which was worded by El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values, makes no direct mention of retirees.
“It hurts, It’s scary. You don’t know what’s going to happen. Everything is up in the air,” said Larry Kunard, retired El Paso Police officer. “Is anybody going to want to work 22 years and not have medical retirement?”
The City of El Paso’s attorney’s office has the same concerns and has posted on the city’s Website that thought the state assures continued coverage for retirees, they haven’t resolved issues with the proposed ordinance and the city cannot guarantee health benefits to all current city employees upon their retirement if the proposal passes.
Pastor Tom Brown, one of the leaders of El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values, wrote a letter to city employees stating the city’s own original policy to extend benefits does not mention retirees either.
Brown’s letter stated the term “city employee” refers to active and retired employees and that state protection would make it impossible for the city to take away retiree benefits.
“Am I going to take the legal interpretation of some pastor when it comes to a question of law or am I going to take the interpretation of a municipal attorneys office with hundreds of years of municipal law experience?” Ortega asked.
But City Rep. Carl Robinson, who was the only city representative who voted against the original move to extend benefits, said it was City Council who broke the law.
“The state of Texas does not allow same-sex partners to be married,” Robinson said. “It also says that no municipality can enact or give benefits similar to marriage.”
Another concern is that the proposed ordinance only mentions dependent children and right now the city also provides benefits to children who aren’t dependents.
Related Link:City’s FAQ On Domestic Partner Benefits Initiative
