Salt Lake Tribune
Weekly Ad Specials
SLC council aims to trump Rocky with own benefits plan
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2005, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Lawsuit update

PEHP, an independent state agency that administers Salt Lake City's health insurance, had been expected to file a declaratory action today to ask a 3rd District judge to decide whether domestic-partner benefits are legal. But PEHP's attorney, Dan Andersen, said it won't happen until next week. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson said, "We welcome it."

The city's attorneys have written a legal analysis of the benefits plan outlining why they think it is legal. Anderson said he would like to release it to the public but won't for other unrelated legal reasons.

-

Rocky Anderson will be fighting for his domestic-partner benefits plan in court and at City Hall.

The Salt Lake City mayor had hoped the City Council would signal its approval for his executive order expanding insurance benefits to city employees' gay and heterosexual partners by passing a resolution of support.

Forget it. Instead, council members - offended they weren't invited to meaningfully weigh in on Anderson's plan - are in the process of devising a competing insurance package that, if passed, would supercede Anderson's. The mayor signed the executive order Wednesday.

A majority of council members say they are interested in providing insurance benefits to domestic partners, but also want to include employees' other significant others, including siblings, parents or friends. Anderson opposes the proposal, saying it is a way for the council to avoid the controversial issue of sexual orientation.

"This is all being motivated by trying to dodge the issue of equality for those who have a different marital status or different sexual orientation," the mayor said.

Councilwoman Jill Remington Love is behind the council plan, saying it is a way to strengthen all types of households.

She asked the mayor twice this week to hold off signing the executive order, encouraging him to work with the council. There was time, she noted Thursday, because Anderson's plan won't go into effect until a judge rules on whether domestic-partner benefits are legal. The city's insurance administrator, PEHP, believes the benefits might buck the state's traditional marriage law.

"Maybe we could work through the kinks, it wouldn't have to be a battle," Love recalled telling the mayor. "He was anxious to do an executive order his way."

Love and Anderson have had competing plans since August, when both were separately exploring domestic-partner benefits. Love offered to help the mayor seek council approval, but then backed off the council route - and encouraged Anderson to sign an executive order - when city attorneys said such a plan was the mayor's prerogative. This week Love learned the council can also have a say.

Council Chairman Dale Lambert is intrigued with Love's plan. "It accomplishes a broader objective in a better way."

He also said Anderson's request for a resolution of support on the executive order is an "odd approach. If you really want our approval, work with us."

Anderson says he did collaborate when he sent a draft copy of the order to the council on Monday, the same day he publicly announced the order, and asked for input. No one responded.

"Rocky's idea of collaboration is, 'I decide and you agree,' ” said Councilman Dave Buhler.

When asked if he supports offering benefits to employees' gay and unmarried partners, Buhler said, "Sure, we just ought to be fair to everybody. I don't care what their precise living arrangement is."

Anderson said he supports more people obtaining health insurance, but not the council plan, which he predicted would be costly. Preliminary figures show it won't be, according to the council.

"It [the council plan] doesn't add anything toward the movement toward greater equality," Anderson said. "I'm taking the situation now [where spouses of city employees receive insurance] and saying, let's make it equal [for domestic partners]."

"Why not include the world? What's wrong with covering the whole neighborhood? The whole ward?" asked Anderson. "Cover everybody you know who can't get insurance."

He said he would invite an acquaintance who has $5,000 worth of medical costs a month to move in to his house to take advantage of city insurance if the council plan is approved.

hmay@sltrib.com

Competing insurance package: The proposal would expand coverage to employees' other significant others
Article Tools

 
Affiliates and Partners