http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18132235The City Council does not have the right to ignore a voter-approved ordinance that limits which city employees may receive health benefits, a federal judge has ruled.
Council members, who want to provide benefits, will decide next week what the next step will be.
U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo on Friday upheld the voter-approved ordinance banning domestic-partner benefits.
The decision was made after a group of city employees, domestic partners of city employees, retirees and several elected officials filed a federal lawsuit in December challenging the ordinance's constitutionality.
The ordinance, adopted after majority voter approval, makes health benefits available only to city employees and their legal spouses and dependent children.
This is an example of how direct democracy can have unexpected consequences," Montalvo stated in his ruling, quoting James Madison's "The Federalist No. 10."
Montalvo ruled that the ordinance does not provide benefits to retirees or elected officials and limits health coverage to city employees and their legal spouses and dependent children.
"It distinguishes between these people and everyone else," he wrote in the ruling.
Montalvo also ruled that a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the ordinance will end Aug. 1 to give those affected time to find alternative health insurance.
Montalvo ordered that the city not apply the ordinance to eligible retirees of uniformed services, and that the city produce sections
of the collective bargaining agreement addressing the possible rights of uniformed services retirees to health insurance coverage by June 3.
On Nov. 2, voters passed an ordinance ending health benefits for 19 gay and unmarried partners of city employees. But the city attorney's office says the wording of the ordinance also means that more than 200 people -- including some retirees -- will lose benefits.
The ballot initiative said, "The city of El Paso endorses traditional family values by making health benefits available only to city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children."
The city attorney's office interpreted that to mean nobody else is eligible for benefits. City Council members, employees of the Public Service Board and others are not technically city employees, City Attorney Charlie McNabb has said.
Retirees also are not employees, but state law mandates that they keep their benefits unless they are offered benefits through another job.
City Council members are to take up the issue in executive session during next Tuesday's council meeting. The item was placed on the agenda by the City Attorney's Office at the request of Mayor John Cook.
Cook said Tuesday that city officials will now have to determine how many city employees will be affected by the ordinance, and council members will also have to decide how they will proceed.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
