City Council Doesn’t Repeal Voter-Approved Partner Benefits Initiative
Shouts, conflict and even accusations that some city officials are gay were part of the latest El Paso City Council meeting to deal with taking away health benefits from gay and unmarried partners of city employees.
El Paso City Council voted Tuesday morning not to repeal the voter-approved initiative that two weeks ago took away health benefits from gay and unmarried partners of city employees.
City officials have said the broad language in the voter-approved initiative would also take away the benefits of more than 200 city employees and their dependents.
Former City Rep. Ignacio Padilla, who is against providing the benefits, had a pointed question for City Attorney Charles McNabb. It is the City Attorney’s Office which has been interpreting the initiative and its impact.
“And I want to ask Mr. McNabb, if he in fact, it’s been rumored, that he is married to a same-sex partner?” Padilla asked from the podium.
McNabb, who was in attendance, did not react to the question.
City Rep. Steve Ortega quickly stepped in to stop the line of questioning.
“I’m going to ask that this conversation be stopped right now,” Ortega said. “We’re not putting anyone’s sexuality on court here. It’s over with.”
Padilla then had to be escorted out of the meeting by police.
Some proponents argued that if the City Attorney is gay, then it’s a conflict of interest for him to interpret their initiative. Others praised City Council for taking a stand against what they called intolerance.
Voting to introduce the repeal were city representatives Ann Morgan Lilly, Susie Byrd and Ortega. Voting against the repeal were city representatives Carl L. Robinson, Rachel Quintana, Eddie Holguin Jr. and Beto O’Rourke. City Rep. Emma Acosta was absent from the meeting.
Byrd and Ortega asked City Council to reconsider their decision but they were out-voted once again. The votes remained the same, except this time Lilly voted against repealing the initiative.
In eight weeks, City Council is slated to come back with clearer language of the charter amendment voters will look at in May. Then, when they have the language they want, they’ll take a final vote on whether to take this to the voters in May. If approved, the charter amendment would be voted on in a special election on may 14, 2011.
The May election was originally only supposed to be for the seats of four city representatives. But because of the addition of the amendment it will become a city-wide election and the city will take on a higher cost to bring the charter amendment to the voters. Mayor John Cook estimated it will add an additional cost of $70,000 to taxpayers.
Last year, City Council approved the domestic partners policy which extended health benefits to domestic partners of city employees.
Nineteen employees received the benefits this year at a cost of less than $30,000 to taxpayers. The special election for this proposition two weeks ago cost about $130,000. Last week, city attorneys told City Council the ordinance would also affect some city retirees and children and grandchildren of city employees that aren’t considered dependents by the federal government.
Tell City Council how you feel by clicking on the names below to call or email the mayor or city representatives to let them know how you feel about this issue:
