MAYOR HOUSTON ENDORSES SPOUSAL BENEFITS FOR CITY WORKERS IN CIVIL UNION RELATIONSHIPS
Statement from Mayor J. Michael Houston

for more information:
Ernie Slottag 789-2235

There has been considerable discussion with regard to the Joint Labor/Management Healthcare Committee’s decision not to provide spousal health benefits to city employees who have entered into civil unions. The committee is a group comprised of various individuals who represent the interests of labor, management, retirees, and the City Council. It is the controlling and policy-making body for Springfield’s employee health insurance coverage. Since its inception in 2002, the committee has successfully turned around a self-insurance fund that had not been operated properly, controlled costs for both employees and the city, and fostered a smoother and more efficient collective bargaining process between management and various labor unions that represent city employees.

It has been the committee’s policy to follow the guidelines of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in the operation of our self-insurance program even though ERISA does not apply to governmental plans. At the time of the passage of the state legislation, the committee decided to continue to follow those guidelines as has been their standard practice since its inception. The federal government does not recognize civil unions.

Our Legal Department has looked at the situation and has confirmed that ERISA excludes state and local government plans. Further, it has pointed out that the Illinois Insurance Code is not relevant, as it specifically exempts self-insurance plans from its oversight. The authority for Springfield to adopt a self-insurance plan comes from the Illinois Municipal Code, which stipulates that any municipality may arrange to provide various types of insurance and “…may arrange to provide that insurance for the benefit of the spouses or dependents of those employees.” Under the Code certain insurance coverage is mandated and the city’s self-insurance coverage complies with those mandates.

The Illinois Civil Unions Act provides “…a party to civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law” and is expressly to be liberally construed.

While I believe that as a home rule unit of government we have broad authority in areas not specifically covered by the Illinois Municipal Code, I also believe that the Illinois judicial system would more likely be predisposed to hold that a broadly-worded state law would mandate coverage of civil union partners in the same manner as spouses. Therefore I believe the City of Springfield will have to comply with the state regulations and would expect the healthcare committee to reverse its decision to deny coverage to civil union partners at its next meeting.

I know the committee is very concerned about the potential impact of the cost of providing this coverage on not only the city budget, which must absorb 75% of the expense, but also the premiums paid by our employees and retirees. The committee’s actuary has indicated it will cost $725,000 to provide the coverage which is primarily based on the assumption that the city will have 65 civil partner participants in the plan. Given the experience of other units of government that are providing civil union coverage, I do not believe that there will be a large number of participants joining the plan. I urge the committee to strongly consider that assumption in reevaluating its position, especially since it is able to review and adjust premiums on a quarterly basis. Ultimately I believe it is something that we should provide whether or not we have a legal obligation to do so. While I realize that it is up to the committee to make the decision, I once again urge it to reevaluate its position and to approve coverage for civil union partners.