Town Board: Shepherd spars with board over health insurance issue

The Town Board’s new member took his strongest stand in office yet on Tuesday, lashing out at the Town Board for its policies requiring some municipal employees to pay a share of their health insurance premiums while others — those people represented by unions, he said — pay nothing.

“It’s a glaring thing, a caste system of sorts,” said first-term Councilman Paul Shepherd as the board began a week-by-week review of its current management policies. “Non-represented people don’t get the better deal.”

Mr. Shepherd, who disclosed during last year’s election campaign he’d never had health insurance, would be among a handful of town employees to fall under a policy requiring new hires — in this case a new councilman hired by the voters — to pay 25 percent of his health care premium. He has instead declined coverage but asked for a stipend in return, a few thousand dollars that the other board members get if they have their own health insurance plans.

(On the basis of Mr. Shepherd’s understanding, it was  reported in the January 19 print edition that Mr. Shepherd was the first employee to be required to pay 25 percent. On Thursday, he forwarded an email to him from Town Attorney Laury Dowd listing four employees who fall under the policy.)

Mr. Shepherd says he doesn’t qualify for the stipend because he has no coverage at all. He commented in an interview Wednesday that he might have  to hire a lawyer eventually to push his case.

At the work session, the other four board members defended the town’s policy. Councilwoman Chris Lewis said of the town’s approach to union negotiations that “you do not attempt to take away from people what they already have” or talks would break down and an expensive labor battle would ensue, requiring mediation or arbitration and the hiring of a labor lawyer. Cutbacks in salary or benefits, she said, “are deal breakers.”

She said there has been a national trend for groups to ask newer employers to help pay their health care costs. The result here is a staggered range of contributions with all new employees required to pay 25 percent of their premium in an effort to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

“I just don’t know if picking off the weak and the sickly is the way to do it,” Mr. Shepherd said. “The people who are straggling in one at a time or the people who aren’t unionized … We’re obviously picking on the weak here, there’s no question about … It can’t be coincidental. These numbers are the way they are … This is obviously a function of the strength of the union and people who are not unionized have nothing to say about it whatsoever.”

He noted that in 2014 “the United States of America” will make changes in its health care system — a reference to the year when most of the health insurance reform rules signed into law by President Obama in 2010 go into effect — and “we should be prepared for that.”

Health care is not compensation, he argued. “With health care, you are valuing human life and health. And what is presumed, according to what I understand the Declaration of Independence and all those other things to say, is that we’re all considered equal when it comes to our life and our health. So this is my problem with this staggered system …There’s something obviously unfair going on and I know life isn’t fair sometimes but when you are in charge of making policy and you witness unfairness and you elect to continue it it goes out of the realm of unfair into being unethical in my opinion.”

Councilman Ed Brown replied it was a matter of newer employers “having an understanding coming into a job and knowing what you have coming at you. I think it’s that simple. You don’t have to get into the Declaration of Independence.

Several board members spoke at once but Mr. Shepherd appeared to say, “I’m sorry to offend you, Edward.”

Mr. Brown said he was not offended and that Mr. Shepherd could say anything he wanted but the implementation of an employee contribution policy, and new employees knowing the terms of their employment, “was just that simple.”

“I don’t consider myself weak and sickly,” Supervisor Jim Dougherty said, but when he became a town employee after he was first elected to office in 2007 he understood he would have to “kick in 15 percent and that was the deal.”

Mr. Shepherd, clearly not satisfied, also sparred later with other board members as they reviewed the application of Alexander Lemond of Gardiners Bay Drive for a wetlands permit to locate a pool within 100 feet of the shoreline. The purpose of the review was to make sure the application was complete before a public hearing is set.

Mr. Shepherd said he was new to the process and asked if there were a checklist the board uses to determine whether or not anything was missing. Councilman Peter Reich explained that the board members look over the file for blanks, missing information or anything they had questions about — it depended on the particular application what might be an issue.

“What I’m trying to do, Peter, is find a way to be useful in the discussion … and I don’t know how many years I’d have to sit here and absorb your knowledge. Or you can help me.”

After a silence, Mr. Reich said, “There is no checklist” and went on to explain why.

Also at Tuesday’s work session, the board:

• Reviewed the purchasing policy and agreed to consider raising the limits for requiring written estimates and public bidding after consulting with Public Works Commissioner Jay Card.

• Discussed Building Inspector Bill Banks’ suggestion that the fee be set at $100 for an application to build an impervious driveway in the Near Shore, as allowed by a new amendment to the town code. The driveways will require building permits as well as Appeals Board approval.

• Came up with two possible site sfor a dog park — the former town highway barn property and a town-owned parcel on Manwaring Road. Supervisor Dougherty asked proponent Richard Needham, who was in the audience, to come up with a written proposal with some specifics, including proposed rules.