Plan to give city workers same-sex benefits is in limbo
By: Health Insurance
Submitted: 2010-01-03 09:38:28 | Word Count: 421
A political advocacy group that promotes equal rights for gays and lesbians made a big splash in summer when it announced it was resurrecting a proposal to expand health benefits to Colorado Springs city employees, including their same-sex domestic partners.
But since the Citizens Project made the announcement during its annual Creating Community Breakfast in June, talk of the “Plus One” benefits proposal has quieted.
[ advertisement ]
In August, Executive Director Barb Van Hoy said she expected Councilman Randy Purvis to ask to add the proposal to an informal City Council agenda in September.
But in September Van Hoy said the proposal was being pushed past the Nov. 3 election, a decision directly tied to what was on the ballot: a proposed property tax increase.
“We understand that when the community is dealing with really difficult budget decisions … it’s just not the right time to be extending benefits, even though the fact is that it will be cost-neutral,” Van Hoy said then.
Despite putting the contentious proposal on hold, voters flatly rejected the tax increase.
So what’s happening with the proposal now?
Van Hoy did not immediately return a call for comment today, but Purvis said the answer is unknown.
“I haven’t talked to anybody about it in some time. I’m not sure what the plans are,” he said in a telephone interview. “I have to talk to (my council colleagues) before anything happens on that.”
When asked whether he had agreed to bring the proposal forward, Purvis said: “I told people I would look at it. Now I’m not so sure because times have changed.”
The city is in “turmoil,” Purvis said.
“There’s just a lot of turmoil in the community right now and a lot of stress, and I just don’t see a need to stir that pot if it doesn’t need to be stirred,” he said.
Under the proposal, a city employee “plus one” more person would receive health insurance coverage.
The proposal has been cloaked in controversy because the coverage would be available to same-sex couples, but other people, such as unmarried heterosexual partners or an employee’s parent or child, would also be eligible to participate in the plan.
