Health insurance policies for elected officials in Hillsboro debated

After seven months in committee, a question of city policies for health insurance for elected officials in the City of Hillsboro remains unresolved, according to a meeting held Monday, Oct. 2.

Hillsboro Law Director Randalyn Worley had asked in February for the employee handbook policies on health insurance, as well as overtime, to be placed in the Civil Service and Employee Relations committee.  

The committee met in March to begin reviewing insurance for elected officials, according to committee chair Dan Baucher, but at that time the issue “was tabled until more data is acquired.” They met again Sept. 5, and discussed “eligibility and concerns” regarding health insurance, Baucher said at the Sept. 14 city council meeting.

According to Baucher, in September the committee had tentatively “made the recommendation that no elected official was eligible for health insurance” because they believed there was no legislation to support it.

On Monday, Oct. 2, discussions continued, but the matter was again tabled, as the committee meeting included discussion from Baucher, fellow committee member Mary Stanforth, city auditor Dawson Barreras, public works superintendent Shawn Adkins and code enforcement officer/economic development coordinator Lauren Walker.

Baucher said that Worley was “on call” but “didn’t want to show up” and give the appearance she was “persuading” the committee since she is an elected official affected by the policy.

In response to emailed questions from The Highland County Press, Worley wrote: “There is much confusion pertaining to elected officials and health insurance. We have been researching old ordinances and meeting minutes in an attempt to clarify current policy. The issue is still in committee, and we hope to have a finalized policy soon.”

Among the topics debated Monday was whether legislation discovered in the past month can support paying for health insurance coverage and whether officials should be given 100-percent coverage or pay for 15 percent, as other city employees do. It was repeatedly asked of the committee to “keep it status quo,” and let the elected officials receive free health insurance.

Baucher said that Ordinance 1983-36 — which was found by Walker — was originally used as the basis for providing insurance benefits. It reads: “As additional compensation the Mayor, Director of Law, Municipal Court Judge and Auditor shall be provided hospitalization, major medical and other health insurance of the same quality and upon the same terms as the salaried employees of the City as provided in Codified Ordinance Section 34.04, to the extent that such insurance coverage by similar policies is not provided by another source to any such elected official or elected official’s spouse without cost, or at lower cost provided to such elected official by the City. Increases in coverage, different terms, and increased premium costs shall not be deemed increases during term of the aforesaid elected officials.”

“But then there was an ordinance in 2015 that repealed it,” Baucher said. “In 1983, it looks like it was as additional compensation, but then in 2015, they repealed it and basically said that their salaries will adjust accordingly, basically to make up for their insurance.”

The ordinance approved in 2015 amended that section of the city’s code to read: “The salaries for the elected offices of Mayor, Law Director, Auditor, and Treasurer shall be paid in bi-weekly installments from the General Fund or as directed by the City Auditor, in an amount established by ordinance from time to time. The salaries of the President of Council and Council members shall be paid in bi-weekly installments or as directed by the City Auditor, in an amount established by ordinance from time to time, from the General Fund.”

Walker agreed that the 2015 ordinance repeals “that they get their free insurance,” as Baucher said, but Walker said “It remains status quo since this date.”

“So it’s been in effect, but there’s no ordinance that allows it,” Baucher said. “The last [committee] meeting — that was before all this was found — we went and said that ‘no elected official,’ and that way it covered everything. But we want to go back and offer it to the [elected officials]?”

Stanforth pointed out that according to the ordinance from 1983, the officials “should be paying the 15 percent or whatever the percent” city employees pay. Adkins said that the city “pays 85 percent of the city employees’ insurance.”

“At least be offered it,” Adkins said. “At least be offered insurance. Because I think you said last time you weren’t even going to offer insurance.”

“Because there was no ordinance whatsoever,” Baucher said. “At the last meeting, we [were] under the assumption that they [were] getting free insurance without anything — no ordinance whatsoever — putting it in place.”

Adkins argued that mayor Justin Harsha “only gets paid $25,000 to be the mayor.”

“My thought is until it’s changed to a full-time position,” Stanforth began.

“So the guy that runs the city can’t be offered insurance?” Barreras interjected.

“Not on a part-time basis,” Stanforth said. “They know that going in.”

Barreras responded that Hillsboro would be “the only anomaly in the whole state of Ohio,” while Walker argued that the Ohio Revised Code doesn’t list a “part-time or full-time designation” for mayors.

“It would cost $3,750 for Justin to have insurance,” Barreras said.

“That’s not bad,” Stanforth said. “For the year?”

“For the 15 percent,” Barreras said.

“That’s not bad, I don’t think,” Stanforth said.

Adkins asked if the city should “look at raising” Harsha’s salary to $29,000 to accommodate the cost of insurance.

“What I’m saying is the mayor’s only getting paid $25,000 a year to be mayor,” Adkins said. “What they consider part-time is anything less than 32 hours. He puts more than 32 hours in the city.”

Stanforth said, “I’m not arguing that. I know that.”

However, it was brought up that Worley had previously advised that they could not raise Harsha’s salary. Ohio Revised Code 731.07 reads: “The salary of any officer of a city shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he was elected or appointed. This section does not prohibit the payment of any increased costs of continuing to provide the identical benefits provided to an officer at the commencement of his term of office.”

“Could you not pass it [insurance] status quo as it is right now?” Adkins asked. “It’s been that way, guys, for a good while, that the 15 percent of the mayor’s costs of the insurance has been paid for. That would be part of his salary, part of his benefit package, I guess.”

Adkins added that whether it could be included in the mayor’s “benefit package is a question for Randalyn.”

“Another ordinance would just need to be established saying that benefits would be included for elected officials,” Walker said.

“We’ve been paying for the mayor’s insurance at least since 2015, or 1983,” Adkins said.

“But we shouldn’t have been paying for it since 2015,” Stanforth said.

“But what I’m saying is it’s been status quo since then,” Adkins said. “Leave it status quo for the mayor, but all other elected officials, you can make a decision on.

“The mayor runs the city. He’s our commander in chief for the city.”

Barreras asked if there is “any other city around here that [doesn’t] offer their mayor insurance.” Adkins said that he thinks it’s “status quo — they get offered insurance, whether they pay for it or not,” but most mayors pay “if not quite double, then at least a third more, than what we pay our mayor” in Hillsboro.

As brought up by Walker, however, “even if you raise” the mayor’s salary, “you still have to determine” the insurance issue and draft an ordinance accordingly.

Baucher said that his understanding — from talking to Worley — was that they needed legislation to “specify” which officials qualify for the insurance, since “if we do all elected officials, that would include all council,” he said. (The treasurer’s position is also an elected office.)

“My feelings is if you're part time — 32 hours or less — you shouldn't be offered,” Adkins said.

“Exactly,” Stanforth said.

“The mayor puts in more than 32 hours,” Adkins said.

“That’s why I would like to see something down [regarding the mayor’s hours],” Stanforth said. “Things are just too vague here.”

After some other discussion, Stanforth again reiterated, “I don't have a problem with offering the elected officials what the other employees of the city are getting — that they have to pay their 15 percent. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with free health insurance.”

“But he also is only making $25,000 a year,” Adkins said, adding that city laborers are paid more annually than the mayor.

“But also, I'm sorry, it’s like being a teacher,” Stanforth said. “When you're going in, you know what you're going to get paid.”

“Yeah, but going in right now, you get free insurance,” Barreras said.

“In the future, if the mayor's salary is increased, then whatever you determine on the benefits, the salary can be changed in the future to compensate for that 15 percent, too,” Walker said.

“Either way, as long as our mayor’s offered insurance, I think it’s going to work,” Adkins said. “I just hate to see the mayor take a $3,750 pay cut to pay for insurance, especially at $25,000 a year, but I think our mayor would stay. I think.”

Adkins asked if the mayor’s insurance was the only one affected by the committee’s considerations, and Baucher said it was “all elected officials.”

“Could you make an exception for four employees?” Adkins asked. “When I say employees, I know they’re elected.”

There was then discussion of who qualifies as “elected officials” eligible for insurance, as the “four employees” listed in 1983 were the “Mayor, Director of Law, Municipal Court Judge and Auditor,” but Adkins said the auditor was “full time” and Stanforth said that “has nothing to do with the insurance, because it’s been repealed.”

“So there’s a chance I’m not even going to get offered insurance?” Barreras asked.

“You’ll get offered insurance, but you’ll get the option of paying 15 percent,” Stanforth said.

“So the mayor will as well, then, right?” Barreras asked.

“The mayor, the law director, the judge and the auditor,” Baucher said.

Stanforth pointed out that they have already raised the auditor’s salary recently — with legislation introduced to raise it again — and that the mayor’s salary “might have to wait” until they are legally permitted to increase it.

Adkins asked, “Can you not pass that same ordinance that was in ’83?”

“No, because you’d have to change the salary,” Stanforth said, as that ordinance also included the salaries as they stood in 1983.

“The ordinance would just reflect additional compensation for elected officials,” Walker said. “Our handbook already states what full-time employees and part-time employees get. This would just be elected officials.”

Adkins then suggested that they “revert back to the ’83 legislation for one year.

“That would at least give Justin a year to figure out what he’s going to do with insurance,” Adkins said.

Then, Adkins pointed out that the city’s “insurance runs from October to October, so the mayor is covered for one more year anyway.”

“Leave it status quo until you do some more investigation,” Adkins said. “He’s covered for the remainder of the year because our insurance is October to October.”

The committee voted 2-0 to approve Stanforth’s motion to “table this for the time being,” pending further review.

In other discussion, the committee voted 2-0 to approve the following language to be added to the employee handbook, at the request of the auditor’s office: “City employees are eligible to enroll for insurance benefits 30 days after the month of hire. Benefits will begin the first day of the month following the 30-day waiting period after the month of hire.”

“I think most places wait six months,” Barreras said. “This way, we're going to be 30 days for new hires to be able to start receiving their benefits instead of waiting six months.”

Adkins said the city has a “six-month probationary period when you’re hired,” but the standard practice has been to offer insurance after 30 days. However, he and Barreras said the handbook does not reflect that.

Both Stanforth and Baucher said they had “no problem” with the 30 days and agreed to approve the request.

The committee announced Wednesday evening that they will be meeting again Monday, Oct. 9.