Letters: Insurance Bargaining Group Not a Public Body
 |
To the Editor:
Upon reading both "Pittsfield City Councilor alleges meeting law violation in insurance talks" from Jan. 4 and the editorial "PEC process lacked needed transparency" from Jan. 5 [both in The Berkshire Eagle] I am compelled to respond to some of the misconceptions that have continued to circulate in print and digital media about the shift to MIAA/Blue Cross Blue Shield from the GIC.
One misconception that must be addressed is the assumption that the Public Employee Committee is a "public body" subject to the Open Meeting Laws outlined in M.G.L. c. 30A Sec. 18. In fact, the PEC is a coalition of bargaining units (unions) comprised of the presidents or representatives of the city's bargaining units (unions) as well as a retiree representative designated by the Retired State, County and Municipal Employees Association. Established under M.G.L. 32B Sec. 19, the PEC bargains as a group with the appropriate public authority to provide health insurance benefits for current and retired municipal workers.
The PEC is not a public body "established to serve a public purpose" and is not subject to open meeting laws. It is not like the school committee, the parks commission, or the school building needs commission. Our obligation is to the members we represent.
Our responsibility as association presidents is to inform our members and bargain in their interests. It is not our responsibility to inform or involve other public authorities; however, I was happy to discuss the proposed plans with my Ward 5 Councilor Jonathan Lothrup when he inquired about it on Sept. 28.
The discussion of the switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield began in May 2014. Members in my association were notified of the potential change Sept. 2 and received updates throughout September as to the status of negotiations. Knowing full well that our deadline to withdraw was approaching, I offered and presented a series of six informational meetings to all groups represented under the PEC structure so they could invite members to attend, ask questions, and have the proposal explained to them.
One other misconception that needs to be clarified is that the parties could have "waited a year" to implement this change. If the Oct. 1 deadline was missed, the city and the employees would have been obligated to remain in the GIC for three more years. While the GIC served our city well during difficult budget times, the savings offered by MIAA/Blue Cross Blue Shield and the increased benefits made for serious discussion and consideration. Let us not forget the upheaval that occurred when the GIC changed benefits midcourse on municipalities several years ago due to budget shortfalls. This year, the GIC is projecting a shortfall of at least $120 million.
If you are a public employee represented by a local on the committee and you feel you were not adequately informed, my recommendation is to contact your representative on the PEC. Please recognize that even the groups that ultimately voted to stay with GIC contributed significant time, energy, and valuable ideas to our agreement.
The Berkshire Eagle has only contacted the PEC once to gather information about the move from GIC to MIAA/Blue Cross Blue Shield. I stand by my statements in a previous article that this was a win for both the city and public employees.
A more productive and worthy use of newsprint would be directing employees and retirees to the potential plans on the city's website and contacting those close to the source for comments.
Brendan Sheran is president of United Educators of Pittsfield, the city's teachers union, and vice chairman of the Public Employee Committee.
Tags: collective bargaining, health insurance, PEC, public unions,
