Civil Service Commission supports free healthcare for Boc

After one hour and 14 minutes of discussion at a morning meeting on Feb. 21, the Belleville Civil Service Commission voted unanimously to what amounts to the city providing free health care to Keith Boc after he retires Feb. 28.
Department of Public Services Director Keith Boc had pointed out the existing rules of the city on retirement health care were not being followed.
The current rules say that after 25 years of service, health care for life is paid 100% by the city. But after a closed-door session on Nov. 4, the council voted for provisions that require 20% payment of health care premiums for Civil Service retirees, the same as for other employees.
Boc is about to retire and said he wanted a decision now because this has been weighing on him since that council action in November and it has been very stressful for him.
At the Feb. 21 meeting, when it was suggested the CSC may want to look at the city attorney’s opinion and take the appeal up at a future meeting, Boc said, “Wait another week? I thought this meeting would be held months ago… I just want it to be over with.”
“I’m with Keith,” said CSC chairman Mike Loria. “We just could be going round and round about this.”
Boc said he knows the city council could just ignore the CSC decision and if he gets a bill in the mail for health care he will have to pay it or lose his health coverage.
The Feb. 21 CSC meeting agenda called for an executive session before Boc’s appeal so the CSC could hear “a communication from the city attorney which is subject to the attorney-client privilege.”
But CSC member Don Bluhm challenged the need for closed-door session, saying everything should be discussed in public.
“The city attorney represents the city. How can the city attorney represent the city and come over and try to talk to us in executive session? … Intimidation is the word that comes to mind. There is nothing to go into closed session for,” Bluhm said.
City attorney Steve Hitchcock said he could do it in open session if the CSC doesn’t have any questions.
Loria, who later in the meeting was reelected CSC chairman, said there are no charges brought against anyone, so there is no reason to go into closed session. He said the communication from Hitchcock was just given to CSC members that morning.
“I don’t think we need to go into closed session,” Bluhm stated, and then made the motion to remove Item 7, Executive Session, from the agenda.
“Who’s harmed by not going into executive session?” asked CSC member Roy Acho.
Hitchcock said the CSC members couldn’t ask questions that they wouldn’t want in public.
But, Acho said, there are no charges against any individual.
Acho then seconded Bluhm’s motion and the CSC voted not to go into executive session.
The CSC then reelected Loria as chairman and heard Boc’s appeal.
Boc said he submitted an appeal Dec. 2 under Civil Services rules. He said after 25 years of service the Nov. 4 decision was the first time the city council acted on a Civil Service subject without going through the Civil Service Commission. Under CSC Rules, a grievance must be resolved and answered by his immediate supervisor within five days. It wasn’t.
Kollmeyer answered him on Dec. 13 saying his appeal is denied since Resolution 13-101 was adopted by the City Council not the CSC and his request for an appeal is “not in order.”
He said the problem of being denied coverage for his wife, who reportedly has multiple sclerosis, has been resolved through action the council took three days before the appeal hearing, on Feb. 18, with a last-minute item added to its agenda.
Kollmeyer said the city council took action to resolve the civil service retiree health care issue.
“The city council has the right to do it, but must do it correctly,” Boc said of changes to the health care provisions. “Go to the Civil Service Commission first. But that’s not what they did.”
Hitchcock sited provisions in the employee handbook that says hospitalization and medical benefits provided to retirees is the same as to active employees and “in no event” shall the city pay premiums for retirees that exceeds that for active employees.
He said the city council is only affirming that CSC retirees have to pay 20% like the active employees and that what they did in their resolution.
Bluhm said the council can’t do that without a City Charter change, since the Civil Service Commission needs to sign off on that, as well as the council.
Hitchcock gave his opinion that “a premium cost cannot exceed what actives pay.” Hitchcock said “employee compensation” does not cover health care. He said the charter does not name health care as a benefit.
Boc said in the rules given to him it says after 25 years of service, the city will pay 100% of the premium for retirees’ health care.
“If the city wants to charge 20%, fine, let the Civil Service Commission change it,” Boc said.
Bluhm asked if this is based on the fact that that other unions have just 80% covered by the city and the CSC rules are being changed to be consistent with the unions?
Hitchcock said yes.
Kollmeyer said the CSC had a one-year contract for employees to pay 10% of health care, which was approved by the CSC and the council. The police union members have been paying 20% for 4-5 months and the GELC union just signed off to 20% in January, she said.
She said the council’s resolution was moving forward since no one was paying that yet.
Boc asked why weren’t CSC retirees already paying the same as active employees?
Kollmeyer said retired Police Sgt. Bob Dawson has no insurance through the city.
“So, I’ll be the first,” Boc stated, shaking his head.
Bluhm read an April 5, 2005 city resolution prepared by City Manager Steve Walters that stated CSC decisions “shall not be dictated by union negotiations.”
Kollmeyer repeated that in “no way shall the city be required to pay more for retired than active.”
Boc said there are no co-pays mentioned in the CSC contract.
He said Nov. 4 the council went into closed session and then came out and changed CSC rules.
“And, didn’t tell us about it until it was done,” Boc said, adding they said, “This is what it is. Accept it.
“I am not trying to take anything …” Boc said. “After 25 years my rules still say the city will pay 100%. They need to change these rules with the CSC.
“I apologize for this whole mess,” Boc said, “but these are the rules I have.”
He said there was a big session to adopt those rules in 2005. There were no co-pays because in those days there weren’t any.
Kollmeyer said the CSC contract was for 10% and the second year it was to be 20%.
“Why two years later say CSC retirees if it was for everyone?” Boc said.
Attorney Hitchcock said, “Nobody was about to retire.”
“That’s what I thought,” Boc said.
Kollmeyer said that wasn’t fair.
Hitchcock stated his position on the authority of the CSC. He said compensation and positions of employees are under CSC, but benefits do not go under CSC. He said nowhere is the word “healthcare” in the CSC rules.
“Benefits are not part of a compensation plan,” Hitchcock stated.
Boc disagreed, saying salaries and benefits combined is the compensation plan. He said he searched the internet and that’s what he found.
“I don’t know what you searched for,” Hitchcock said, repeating, “Compensation does not include fringe benefits.”
Police Chief Gene Taylor, the only other CSC employee present besides Boc, held up that day’s Independent with the Sumpter Township wages on the front page with the subheads: wages, benefits, and total compensation.
Acho said he didn’t know if the commission could make a decision that day. He said when a person applies for a job, he asks what the compensation is and that includes everything.
Attorney Hitchcock said, “Regardless … in no event shall the city pay more …”
Bluhm said, “But it says the city shall pay…”
“We could go around for five years,” said Loria. “We’ve got some language that needs to be changed.”
Bluhm said they need the city to request the change.
When Boc stated how burdensome this has been to him since he learned of the Nov. 4 action, Bluhm said it has been 91 days.
Chief Taylor said, as a former union representative, there is a legal difference between “shall” and “may.” He explained the wording that assures Boc doesn’t go out and get expensive coverage, but it should be same as the active employees.
Mayor Kerreen Conley, who was seated in the audience, passed a note to the attorney and Hitchcock rose and conducted a whispered communication with her.
Bluhm said he feels the CSC should support Boc and if the administration feels future benefits need to be changed for new employees, changes can be made.
Acho said he supports Boc for a couple of reasons.
“I just found the timing curious,” Acho said. “I’m assuming after he announced his retirement…”
Boc interrupted him to explain that it was a week after the Nov. 4 meeting that he made his decision to retire, “because of this.”
Mayor Conley said before November this had been discussed with Boc on multiple occasions and, “He knew!”
“At no time would the city be obligated to pay more,” she continued. “This was language before November … but it seemed to need clarification.
“We did not know when Keith was going to retire. It was to clarify the situation before Gene, Keith or Lisa [Long] retired.
“He decided to retire a week later. He was mad about an action that the council took,” she said, adding the action was not taken because he was retiring.
“I’m responding,” Boc said. “I called Kerreen [Mayor Conley] confidentially and said I’m considering retiring on my birthday and she said, ‘Pfstt. I figured that anyway.’ Thirty days later this was passed. I asked her why she didn’t go before the CSC before making a decision and she said, ‘Because we don’t have to.’”
Bluhm said no one knew about the Nov. 4 action until after it was over. The council took action based on the opinion that benefits were not under the CSC.
Loria asked if their CSC action goes back to the city council and Boc replied that CSC rules are binding under the appeals process.
“I don’t agree you have authority to overrule the city council,” Hitchcock said.
“We have a right to uphold our rules,” Bluhm replied.
“What the council decides to do is on them,” Loria stated.
“The Civil Service Commission does not have authority to change what the city council has done,” Mayor Conley stated.
“Regardless what we decide the city council can disagree,” Loria said. “That’s out of our realm.”
Chief Taylor said he was never informed about the Nov. 4 resolution until the day after it was passed.
Kollmeyer said Boc and Taylor were at that council meeting, but left when the council went into closed-door session to discuss an attorney/client matter.
“You left. You could have stayed,” Kollmeyer said, pointing out the press stayed that night.
Bluhm made a motion but Hitchcock wanted it more precise, so he reworded it, “that the CSC upholds Section C1 of the benefits and wage handbook that indicates 100% of health care is paid by the city for a retiree with 25 years of service.”
Acho seconded the motion, saying the handbook says 100% and it should have been changed but wasn’t.
Bluhm and Acho voted yes on the motion and Loria asked if he could abstain. He couldn’t, so after saying this was a horribly difficult decision, decided, “I’m going to go with the others.”
“We have to have some clarity,” Acho said. “I’m all for saving the citizens money but we need clarity, the sooner the better.”
Bluhm said at the last CSC meeting on May 30, he suggested they needed to work on improving the handbook.
He said in 1996, when the present Mayor Conley was city manager, they started improvement on the handbook and changes were approved and then rescinded.
Conley said it was suspended for 45 days so employees could have input and then it was approved.
“It was never approved by council,” Boc flatly stated.
“I know this has created a lot of animosity and I’m sorry,” Boc said, as the meeting ended.