Urge Spousal Care Not Part at Death

Bill Short on Votes

Urge Spousal Care Not Part at Death

By HOWARD MEGDAL

 
A number of city retiree advocacy groups Nov. 17 called for the passage of a bill that would extend health-care benefits to surviving spouses and domestic partners of deceased city workers, but mayoral opposition and the lack of enough City Council votes to overturn a veto makes it an uphill battle.

STU LEIBOWITZ: Bill's cost 'chump change.' "For spouses and domestic partners, our coverage terminates automatically," Stu Leibowitz, president of the District Council 37 Retirees' Association, testified at a City Council Committee on Civil Service and Labor hearing. "That means in the hour of death, not only are we faced with the loss of a spouse, but of health coverage as well."

Cost Concerns Mayor

The hearing, chaired by Councilman Joseph P. Addabbo Jr., began with testimony from city Labor Relations Commissioner James F. Hanley, who explained Mayor Bloomberg's objections.

"The administration opposes this bill based on cost, intrusion on collective bargaining, and the right of the city to redistribute funding," Mr. Hanley said.

The Commissioner estimated the cost of the bill at $8 million for the first year. He said that number would jump to $40 million by the fifth year, and $175 million by the 15th year following the bill's passage.

"I cannot emphasize enough that passage of this bill will burden the city with a huge, unfunded mandate," Mr. Hanley said.

Mr. Leibowitz disputed the heaviness of the load. "The real issue is, what is the percentage of the city budget taken by this measure?" he said. "I would submit it is what you and I would call chump change," noting that the city budget was about $50 billion this year, and likely would continue to climb.

More Costly to Veto?

Mr. Leibowitz also pointed out that those not covered by this bill would likely cost the city as much or more when they entered public hospitals after getting sick.

Mr. Hanley also called the bill an incursion on the Mayor's collective bargaining prerogatives.

"The law gives the Mayor exclusive power to negotiate with city workers," he said. "I do have questions about the underlying legalities of the bill." He added that a referendum would be likely for such a measure to become law.

Mr. Leibowitz took issue with that, pointing out that retired city workers were not part of the collective-bargaining process.

For Council Member David I. Weprin, a member of the Civil Service and Labor Committee who also chairs the Council's Finance Committee, the issue is as much ethical as it is financial. "We still have a moral obligation to take care of citizens that can't take care of themselves," he said. '20 Votes Won't Do It' Councilman Addabbo also expressed support for the bill, adding his name to the list of backers in the Council. However, that brought the total number of members on record in favor of the measure to 20, plus Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, well short of a majority, let alone enough to override a Bloomberg veto.

"I would advise all of you here today who want to see this bill passed to keep lobbying those who haven't yet supported this bill," Mr. Addabbo said. "Twenty plus the Public Advocate isn't going to get it done." That fight won't be easy. "It's a good bill," said a Council staffer familiar with the legislation. "It's just so damn expensive."