Document text
Oregon Road Conditions & Cams Email Story to a Friend November 3, 2005 Medford faces second retirement tort claim City’s move limits insurance benefit options of retirees By MEG LANDERS Mail Tribune The city of Medford made an illegal move when it switched employee health insurance plans and didn’t include retirees, claims a retired police officer. Chuck Steinberg filed a tort claim (intent to sue) for damages against the city of Medford Monday because, like most city employees, he is not offered a health insurance plan that extends into retirement. He is the second retired city employee to file such a claim in five weeks. Ron Doyle, former Medford city attorney, filed a similar claim Sept. 27. "We’re not asking them to pay our premiums," Steinberg said, adding he wants the option to stay with the group plan. Steinberg said at least a dozen current and retired employees are planning to address the City Council about the issue during its Nov. 17 meeting. Advertisement Circumstances surrounding the city’s decision to deny insurance to retirees are unclear. When asked who made that decision, City Attorney John Huttl declined comment. "That’s the type of detail that is a matter of pending litigation," he said. Steinberg and Doyle claim that denying insurance to retirees is illegal under Oregon Revised Statute 243.303, which requires Oregon public employers to make their group insurance plans available to retirees until they are eligible for Medicare at age 65. About 300 of the city’s 440 employees have a contract through Oregon Teamsters Employee Trust and do not get the choice of staying with the insurance plan into retirement, according to Doug Detling, human resources director. It’s the same policy Doyle and Steinberg were under.About 75 employees are represented by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and about 64 are represented by the firefighters union. Both unions offer employees the option to continue their insurance plan after retirement. Detling said the police have been with OTET for roughly 10 years. About three years ago, coverage for public works, parks, mechanics and the management group was transferred to OTET after costs shot up about 37 percent. At that time, no coverage for retirees with OTET was chosen. "I wouldn’t want to say there was a decision to not offer (insurance for retirees)," Detling said Wednesday. "Until yesterday, I wasn’t aware there was retirement under OTET." He said including retirees in the health insurance plan may or may not cost the city more money. "You have to shop that," he said. For now, there is an option, albeit an expensive one, for retirees, he said. "As long as you are in a group plan and you retire, you may elect to participate at your expense in the Oregon PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) plan," he said. "That’s more expensive than virtually any other plan. It’s an outrageous amount of money," said Detling. Steinberg is currently covered under the PERS plan and pays a monthly premium of $1,028 that will increase to $1,354 in 2006, he said. Steinberg, 55, retired from the police department in 2003 after 22 years. He is still hired on an hourly basis as the police sketch artist. He said he would like the insurance plan he had as an employee to continue, which would be an $800 monthly premium. Ben Miller, 55, an officer with Medford police for 27 years, said he hopes the city will change its policy. "This is something that would be really helpful for me," said Miller. He said he has to continue to work because it’s difficult to find insurance post-employment, especially if there are any medical issues with the employee or a family member. He said every time he crunches numbers, he finds he can’t retire yet. "Of course you can go get another job, but I may have to do that anyway," he said. Lynn McNamara is the deputy director of City County Insurance Services in Salem, which provides insurance for about 250 cities and counties in Oregon. She said she interprets the statute to read that the employer must make health insurance available into retirement. She said it’s not OTET’s responsibility. "It puts the burden on the employer, not the Teamsters, to provide coverage," she said. She said the issue is about pre-65 coverage, before Medicare kicks in. "Teamsters will provide retiree coverage if you’re a Teamster," she said, adding that it would be a choice made by the employer to not provide it. Doyle and Steinberg hold that what Medford has done is age discrimination. "That’s what the statute is intended to deal with," said McNamara. Huttl said he will forward Steinberg’s tort claim to the city’s insurance company. Steinberg said he can’t imagine there’s actually a written policy that says to deny employees insurance post-retirement. "I’m not sure who dropped the ball down there," he said. "I really don’t see the city trying to fight this." Reach reporter Meg Landers at 776-4481 or e-mail Medford faces second retirement tort claim ">[email protected] . Mail Tribune Home | Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life | Opinion AP News | Archives | Site Map | Community | Classified Copyright © 1997-2005 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback www.bingo.com Home Security Systems Trunks, Footlocker dvd-r Distance Education Computer Security Ztech Media Hosting Sports Equipment Online Casino Reviews Student Loans tcg student loan consolidation Online Pharmacy online casino Myspace Home Equity Loans Windermere Van Vleet Rogue Valley Travel Reservationstogo Hotel Reservations Southern Oregon Loans Online Casino News Natto Kinase Nattokinase Casino Gambling Sites Budget Website Templates Investments & Loans Advertisement s