Each year, Cayuga County legislators earn $9,500 for their service to the county.
While it may not seem like much to many of them, most legislators receive an additional 57 percent of their base salaries - and some, more than 98 percent - in health insurance benefits.
With the inclusion of retired legislators and their surviving dependents, the county is paying an estimated $164,480 per year for legislators' health insurance benefits.
All but one - legislator Chris Palermo - have their individual health insurance premiums completely covered by the county, and therefore by taxpayers. Additionally, current legislators will receive free individual coverage (excluding dental) for life if they retire after 10 years and meet state retirement system age requirements, a perk that has been taken advantage of by eight former legislators.
“That's a crazy policy, ” Legislator Bill Catto said. “No company in the country I know of has a policy that if you work 10 years, you get health insurance for life. I'm not sure that's fair to the taxpayer.” For the record, Catto served for 27 years in the county health department and his health care premiums are paid for by taxpayers.
“Legislators are not treated any differently than anybody else,” said Legislature Chairman Herb Marshall, noting that full-time county employees also receive county-funded health insurance after a decade of service. “Legislators have no preferential treatment.”
Marshall said the county is currently looking at ways to reduce its health insurance expenses, as costs increased 12 percent from 2004 to 2005, largely due to high prescription prices and expensive new procedures.
One possible way to do this would be to increase all employees' deductibles, and their co-pays on prescriptions, Marshall said.
The county is also investigating making all county employees - including CSEA members, who currently have their single premiums 100-percent funded - contribute 10 percent of their individual monthly premiums, he added.
Such an issue was addressed in 2002, when the Legislature passed a resolution requiring non-bargaining employees, including legislators, to pay 10 percent of the cost of premiums for individual health care. The county sheriff's and nurses' unions also each pay 10 percent.
Yet legislators have yet to pay into their individual health plans (they do contribute to family coverage) because a stipulation in the resolution says that the employees must receive a raise before the contribution clause kicks in.
When it comes to receiving health insurance benefits into retirement, legislators and full-time county employees must meet the same requirements, according to the county treasurer's office.
They must serve the county for 10 years and retire, or have 10 years and leave the county when they are at least within five years of retirement. State retirement system age starts at 55, and varies according to the employee's length of service. If employees leave any more than five years before their retirement age, they cannot receive retirement health benefits through the county.
Employees who leave the county within five years of their retirement age have to pay their full health insurance until they reach that age, the treasurer's office said, after which time they must officially retire from the system. The county will cover insurance from then on.
But no matter what kind of county employee you're talking about, the ability to receive health insurance benefits after a decade of service may not be around for much longer.
“That certainly is being looked at,” said Paul Dudley, R-Cato. “It will be changed, I'm sure.”
Marshall said that the county is investigating increasing the required service to receive insurance from 10 to 20 years, though he added that retirement costs are not his primary concern because Medicare kicks in. Catto, D-Auburn, wants to see the lifetime health insurance requirement raised to as much as 30 years (Catto not only served 27 years with the county health department but has 40 years total in the retirement system).
Such measures would seem to preclude many legislators from keeping health benefits into retirement, however, as the current term limit laws permit legislators to serve no more than 12 consecutive years.
David Pappert, R-Auburn, is also not a fan of the current 10-year rule.
“I can't look somebody in the eye and say that's a reasonable policy,” Pappert said, adding that the benefits package for all employees should be looked at regularly. Pappert favors a strictly salary-based compensation for legislators while they're on the job. And when they're finished serving the county, that's it.
“That way, when the person is done being a legislator, the taxpayers are done paying for the legislator,” Pappert said.
But others are wary of reducing legislators' benefits. The county could risk losing some potentially qualified candidates, according to some legislators.
Several say that there is nothing part-time about their positions, and that reducing health benefits could make it difficult to attract people willing to devote their time and energy to something that provides little compensation.
“I say that if (health) insurance is what draws somebody in, then so be it,” said Ray Lockwood, R-Aurelius, adding that if the county is going to change the benefits system, it should look at all employees and not just one specific sector.
Ann Petrus, R-Brutus, also believes that health benefits may play a role in bringing good candidates to the table. Offering legislators health insurance can entice very qualified people to be a public servant, she said.
“For some people, it is their ability to have health insurance, so it's very important to them,” Petrus said. “I'm sure that some people probably feel it is an extra perk to the legislators, but when you look at it, when you actually get down to the net salary, there is not an awful lot there.”
Steve Cuddeback, R-Niles, also feels that the benefits can offer a kind of incentive for legislators - and all county employees - who don't receive much compensation in terms of salary.
Employees are on the low end of the pay scale in comparison to the private sector, and legislators are the lowest paid of anybody for the hours they put in, Cuddeback said.
Cuddeback said that though legislators have free individual premiums, they do pay for family coverage. After Cuddeback does so, his biweekly paycheck is only $176.
“You're not going to get people to run for this job if you don't offer them something,” Cuddeback said.
While Fran Mitchell, R-Genoa, recognizes that health insurance may be an incentive for some, he doesn't think that insurance, or a legislator's salary, is an overpowering draw either way. Mitchell takes full advantage of the benefits currently offered, but he knows that it's only a matter of time before legislators, and all county employees, are asked to contribute more.
He cited the prescription co-pay for legislators - $3 for generic and $6 for prescriptions - as being “out of touch” with the rest of the world.
“I don't think in the current environment of health insurance that we can expect such a plan as we're getting,” Mitchell said. “I think the legislators could set a bit of an example.”
For legislative candidates, the question about whether or not they are going to accept the county's health insurance while they serve can be a tricky one.
Philip Simkin, Democratic candidate for the Cayuga County Legislature's District 3, would accept the benefits that come with the job, though he believes it's important to analyze the effect such benefits have on the county's finances.
“We certainly need to look at the county's overall budget,” Simkin said. “As we retire more and more legislators, it could be a substantial amount of money.”
Simkin said that though he realizes the long hours, he isn't sure whether legislators should receive free health insurance when the position is not considered full time.
The Republican candidate in District 3, Bernard Smith, said that although he would not accept the county's health insurance -he has his own from his 31 years with the state Department of Corrections - he believes legislators are entitled to benefits considering the time they give up for the job.
And Bill Balyszak, Democratic candidate for District 5, said that he would accept the benefits, but that with the introduction of his ideas, he will save the county more than enough to cover the costs of his insurance.
According to some current legislators, offering county-funded health insurance for legislators and other county employees has somewhat backfired.
“This was a benefit given in lieu of higher salaries for many years,” said Michele Sedor, D-Sennett. “Because this was so inexpensive years ago, this is what they did.”
Sedor thinks that given the time devoted to meetings, research and other legislative matters, the $9,500 salary would have to be modified or other benefits offered if the health benefits were reduced.
“I believe that the time I have put in myself as a legislator would either warrant a continuation of legislator benefits or an increase in money,” said Sedor, adding that Cayuga County's legislator benefits are not out of line with what other counties are doing.
Should the legislators be asked to contribute more toward their health insurance - a change which will come if they receive a raise - things may be difficult financially for some legislators, Petrus said, though she notes that it would be far more expensive to buy insurance elsewhere.
Petrus is also realistic about the new health insurance environment and how health care isn't likely to be free anymore.
If new costs kick in, legislators will have to “bite the bullet,” Petrus said. “That's life.”
Staff writer Linda Ober can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 237 or linda.ober@lee.net
With the inclusion of retired legislators and their surviving dependents, the county is paying an estimated $164,480 per year for legislators' health insurance benefits.
All but one - legislator Chris Palermo - have their individual health insurance premiums completely covered by the county, and therefore by taxpayers. Additionally, current legislators will receive free individual coverage (excluding dental) for life if they retire after 10 years and meet state retirement system age requirements, a perk that has been taken advantage of by eight former legislators.
“That's a crazy policy, ” Legislator Bill Catto said. “No company in the country I know of has a policy that if you work 10 years, you get health insurance for life. I'm not sure that's fair to the taxpayer.” For the record, Catto served for 27 years in the county health department and his health care premiums are paid for by taxpayers.
“Legislators are not treated any differently than anybody else,” said Legislature Chairman Herb Marshall, noting that full-time county employees also receive county-funded health insurance after a decade of service. “Legislators have no preferential treatment.”
Marshall said the county is currently looking at ways to reduce its health insurance expenses, as costs increased 12 percent from 2004 to 2005, largely due to high prescription prices and expensive new procedures.
One possible way to do this would be to increase all employees' deductibles, and their co-pays on prescriptions, Marshall said.
The county is also investigating making all county employees - including CSEA members, who currently have their single premiums 100-percent funded - contribute 10 percent of their individual monthly premiums, he added.
Such an issue was addressed in 2002, when the Legislature passed a resolution requiring non-bargaining employees, including legislators, to pay 10 percent of the cost of premiums for individual health care. The county sheriff's and nurses' unions also each pay 10 percent.
Yet legislators have yet to pay into their individual health plans (they do contribute to family coverage) because a stipulation in the resolution says that the employees must receive a raise before the contribution clause kicks in.
When it comes to receiving health insurance benefits into retirement, legislators and full-time county employees must meet the same requirements, according to the county treasurer's office.
They must serve the county for 10 years and retire, or have 10 years and leave the county when they are at least within five years of retirement. State retirement system age starts at 55, and varies according to the employee's length of service. If employees leave any more than five years before their retirement age, they cannot receive retirement health benefits through the county.
Employees who leave the county within five years of their retirement age have to pay their full health insurance until they reach that age, the treasurer's office said, after which time they must officially retire from the system. The county will cover insurance from then on.
But no matter what kind of county employee you're talking about, the ability to receive health insurance benefits after a decade of service may not be around for much longer.
“That certainly is being looked at,” said Paul Dudley, R-Cato. “It will be changed, I'm sure.”
Marshall said that the county is investigating increasing the required service to receive insurance from 10 to 20 years, though he added that retirement costs are not his primary concern because Medicare kicks in. Catto, D-Auburn, wants to see the lifetime health insurance requirement raised to as much as 30 years (Catto not only served 27 years with the county health department but has 40 years total in the retirement system).
Such measures would seem to preclude many legislators from keeping health benefits into retirement, however, as the current term limit laws permit legislators to serve no more than 12 consecutive years.
David Pappert, R-Auburn, is also not a fan of the current 10-year rule.
“I can't look somebody in the eye and say that's a reasonable policy,” Pappert said, adding that the benefits package for all employees should be looked at regularly. Pappert favors a strictly salary-based compensation for legislators while they're on the job. And when they're finished serving the county, that's it.
“That way, when the person is done being a legislator, the taxpayers are done paying for the legislator,” Pappert said.
But others are wary of reducing legislators' benefits. The county could risk losing some potentially qualified candidates, according to some legislators.
Several say that there is nothing part-time about their positions, and that reducing health benefits could make it difficult to attract people willing to devote their time and energy to something that provides little compensation.
“I say that if (health) insurance is what draws somebody in, then so be it,” said Ray Lockwood, R-Aurelius, adding that if the county is going to change the benefits system, it should look at all employees and not just one specific sector.
Ann Petrus, R-Brutus, also believes that health benefits may play a role in bringing good candidates to the table. Offering legislators health insurance can entice very qualified people to be a public servant, she said.
“For some people, it is their ability to have health insurance, so it's very important to them,” Petrus said. “I'm sure that some people probably feel it is an extra perk to the legislators, but when you look at it, when you actually get down to the net salary, there is not an awful lot there.”
Steve Cuddeback, R-Niles, also feels that the benefits can offer a kind of incentive for legislators - and all county employees - who don't receive much compensation in terms of salary.
Employees are on the low end of the pay scale in comparison to the private sector, and legislators are the lowest paid of anybody for the hours they put in, Cuddeback said.
Cuddeback said that though legislators have free individual premiums, they do pay for family coverage. After Cuddeback does so, his biweekly paycheck is only $176.
“You're not going to get people to run for this job if you don't offer them something,” Cuddeback said.
While Fran Mitchell, R-Genoa, recognizes that health insurance may be an incentive for some, he doesn't think that insurance, or a legislator's salary, is an overpowering draw either way. Mitchell takes full advantage of the benefits currently offered, but he knows that it's only a matter of time before legislators, and all county employees, are asked to contribute more.
He cited the prescription co-pay for legislators - $3 for generic and $6 for prescriptions - as being “out of touch” with the rest of the world.
“I don't think in the current environment of health insurance that we can expect such a plan as we're getting,” Mitchell said. “I think the legislators could set a bit of an example.”
For legislative candidates, the question about whether or not they are going to accept the county's health insurance while they serve can be a tricky one.
Philip Simkin, Democratic candidate for the Cayuga County Legislature's District 3, would accept the benefits that come with the job, though he believes it's important to analyze the effect such benefits have on the county's finances.
“We certainly need to look at the county's overall budget,” Simkin said. “As we retire more and more legislators, it could be a substantial amount of money.”
Simkin said that though he realizes the long hours, he isn't sure whether legislators should receive free health insurance when the position is not considered full time.
The Republican candidate in District 3, Bernard Smith, said that although he would not accept the county's health insurance -he has his own from his 31 years with the state Department of Corrections - he believes legislators are entitled to benefits considering the time they give up for the job.
And Bill Balyszak, Democratic candidate for District 5, said that he would accept the benefits, but that with the introduction of his ideas, he will save the county more than enough to cover the costs of his insurance.
According to some current legislators, offering county-funded health insurance for legislators and other county employees has somewhat backfired.
“This was a benefit given in lieu of higher salaries for many years,” said Michele Sedor, D-Sennett. “Because this was so inexpensive years ago, this is what they did.”
Sedor thinks that given the time devoted to meetings, research and other legislative matters, the $9,500 salary would have to be modified or other benefits offered if the health benefits were reduced.
“I believe that the time I have put in myself as a legislator would either warrant a continuation of legislator benefits or an increase in money,” said Sedor, adding that Cayuga County's legislator benefits are not out of line with what other counties are doing.
Should the legislators be asked to contribute more toward their health insurance - a change which will come if they receive a raise - things may be difficult financially for some legislators, Petrus said, though she notes that it would be far more expensive to buy insurance elsewhere.
Petrus is also realistic about the new health insurance environment and how health care isn't likely to be free anymore.
If new costs kick in, legislators will have to “bite the bullet,” Petrus said. “That's life.”
Staff writer Linda Ober can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 237 or linda.ober@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.