Taxes and Fees
2009 Lancaster budget: Part II: Health Insurance coverage and buyouts
By Lee Chowaniec
Nov 19, 2008, 10:48

Prior to approval of the Town of Lancaster 2009 budget, Councilman Ronald Ruffino sponsored a “Suspended Resolution” that if approved would cut spending and save taxpayers another $40,000. Although the measure was welcomed by all, it was believed the resolution fell short in impact.

In his sponsored resolution Ruffino declares $40,000 of taxpayer money will be saved by changing the Town’s policy for Health/Dental/ Optical insurance coverage for Town Councilmen. As of January 1, 2009, town councilmen will no longer be provided Town health insurance coverage, but that they will have to pay 100% of the Town premium cost if they want such coverage and that they shall not be eligible for health insurance buyout – now a stipend of $6,600 per year.

Before proposing his resolution, Ruffino declared that the resolution was very admirable. He said he did some research and found that council members in a town the size of Lancaster are the lowest paid. He added that board member John Abraham would take a 9% pay cut, Dan Amatura would lose his Town provided health insurance coverage and that Donna Stempniak and he would take a 27% pay cut.
(Comment:Pay cuts? Loss of revenue for Amatura who will now have to buy his own insurance, but for the other three board members who have outside insurance and doubble-dipping by taking buyouts?)

Citing that the country and state are in a crisis mode, “We are trying to lead by example,” Ruffino stated.

Ruffino also referred to a November 3, 2008 resolution proposal made by Councilman Dan Amatura to eliminate buyout insurance for elected officials should they have outside health coverage and was pulled for further study. “Upon further study the Town Board has determined that the previously proposed resolution could have cost the town $40,000 annually in insurance premiums, whereas the Town Board decided to change the policy…” (Eliminate board member coverage altogether).

Councilman Amatura cast the only dissenting vote with the statement: “No, only because this resolution doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t affect all elected officials.”

From hearing Amatura’s reasoning in past meetings and work sessions, several residents understand where Amatura is coming from. His sponsored November 3rd resolution had a twofold intent, namely, to stop town elected officials from receiving health insurance buyouts that they were never entitled to and to prevent elected officials from receiving town provided insurance if they had coverage from an outside source.

At the November 3rd meeting Amatura had declared: “After reviewing a 1989 resolution, as well as others before then and since, he discovered no language in the resolutions that entitled town elected officials to receive the buyout compensation as “regular” town employees receive. He determined he was ineligible for buyout consideration and is therefore proposing this resolution “to save taxpayers money.”

At that meeting board member Stempniak declared that a better solution could be had by looking at if they would consider removing the health insurance from the part time town board members.

“Fine with me,” declared Amatura.

“If we want to save taxpayers money, we have to do it all the way,” said Stempniak. “And that would be to take it away from all part-time board members. I motion we table this.”

Resolution falls short

Ruffino’s resolution falls short on impacting all part-time town officials. At the November 3rd meeting why did Stempniak suggest removing health insurance for only part-time board member positions? Why are the two part-time town justice positions not affected by this resolution?

Is Amatura being targeted because he at present is the only board member not having outside health insurance coverage and taking town insurance?

Amatura agreed to Stempniak’s suggestion and Ruffino’s resolution on removing health insurance coverage for part-time board members but voted “no” on the resolution because the resolution does not “go far enough.”

Several residents spoke at the recent Town Board meeting and all commended the board for making modifications to the tentative budget. However, all agreed the board did not go far enough and were especially critical of the resolution to curtail health insurance for only town board members and to not address the insurance buyout policy for full-time elected officials.

Amatura’s position “Use it or lose it” is favored by residents that spoke at the recent board meeting. In fact, many favor a policy that goes beyond stopping the double-dipping buyout policy for elected officials and eliminates elected Town officials who have outside insurance from receiving town provided insurance.

Lancaster taxpayers win with the Ruffino resolution but could have won much more!

Part III: Residents speak out on health insurance policy shortcomings





© Copyright 2003 by Speakupwny.com