Travis County Commissioners Court
January 22, 2008
Item 31
Now, in view of the hour, and the fact that 31 is really a kind of, we could take that in executive session, can't we?
>> consultation with attorney.
>> right, mconsultation with attorney, of course. I think we ought to try to discuss it. It's a kind of unique deal. And this way, I appreciate it. J that will give us this afternoon for executive session.
let's call back the vote session of the Commissioners court. ...invitation to her to come to open court this afternoon to address us on the matter, and that is number 31, consider and take appropriate action regarding request from jan ivy for coverage under the insurance plan. If you will have a seat there. We did receive the write-up that I sent us. We'll be happy to have additional information or have you take questions.
>> I’ll take questions. I pretty much said everything I need to se say in my letter, if anybody has questions.
>> I don't have any questions.
>> anybody else sh.
>> ms. Ivy, is it your charge receive notification, is thatu your biggest point? In the event that you woey received take, do you think at the time that would you elected--
>> I know I would have.
>> because you had a different situation at the time, that you would have versus when you first left the county?
>> right, that's correct.
>> okay.
>> if I had known that would be the last chance I would have to sign up for the insurance, I definitely wou&"p+q. If I had received the notice.
>> in 2004 you were with cap metro.
>> that the correct.
>> were you insured through their employee benefits program is this.
>> yes.
>> what is the employee contribution at capital metro? Are you ppo or epo?
>> they just changed this year. We're self-insured, I think, as the county is. Our portion is arounds $50.
>> a month? Okay. I do share with ms. Ivy the county premiums on the various policies.
>> right.
>> ms. Ivy, did you anticipate in 2004 leaving cap metro or did cap me not have a plan like we have?
>> no--
>> that is the reason you can now honestly say, had I know a$rahu(adthe last time, even though I elected not to do the program because I was, quite honestly, covered by my present employer.
>> no, I thought that at any time I decided to retire, I would be able to get county retiree's insurance. Olicy when you leftright, and that is what I understood.
>> is there reciprocity between the city and cot--county.
>> so))v?
>> reciprocity as far as years of service?
>> cap metro is not under the city. It's their own agency.
>> remind me when left the county.
>> 2000.
>> you started working with cap metro how soon there after sm.
>> the next week.
>> and you still there smyes.
>> .
>> yes.
>> any other questions? I communicated with ms. Ivy but e-mail mostly.
>> yes, sir.
>> over the last several months.
>> that's correct.
>> we appreciate you coming dow.
>> okay.
>> I wanted to give her the opportunity to supplement her written comments any way she saw fit. We may just when we go back into executive session momentarily take this item back in. So it's basically that you dr" not get the notice, and your an understanding was that if you decided to join the county's plan as a retiree after leaving in 2000, you would be able to do so?
>> that would I have access to that, yes.
>> okay.
>> and had I received the notification, I would have signed up.
>> that was in essence the policy in 2000 when she left.
>> yes, in 2000 we did not have any restrictions on the retirees as far as when they signed up. At the time they started taking their tcrs annuity we did law them to sign up. But then in fy '05 when we passed that little portion of retiree policy, that changed. Two mailings were sent out. The preliminary mailing and then we had the employee hearing and the final mailing.
>> do you think that most people with the "q)aup it is at the discretion of the court, and usually through, I would think, the benefits committee when y'all bring things to us, that we can alter you know, policy at any time? Do you think that most people--
>> I think there is a clear an understanding about that. I would say in most cases, of course, there's always someone that doesn't get the same read on something that someone else does. I think for the most part, we try to be very careful to say that the benefits are set on an annual basis. So answer to your question is yes, I think for the most part that people do understand.
>> I want to split another legal hair here. Therq (ada practice when I first came to the county to do certain things. I think for something to be raised to the level of policy there would have had to have been a court action that said intend is is the way to do. I have never encountered mig that rose to the level of policy in relation to )qar)y health issues. There were practices that were the way that the person in hr handled it. I wouldn't disagree that that was a practice at that time, but I would disagree that it was actually a policy because I have never been able to find anything--
>> I agree with that. It was a practice at the time because there was no policy.
>> that indicates that the court had approved it. These may be employees who were acting without any court authority had the question been raised at the time.
>> I can see then where someone feels like, and where I really got snared, if you will, on this deal, I didn't really get the notice. I think that everybody really needs to understand, maybe this is a wake-up call for us where we really need to make sure that peo(&qrunderstand what we do have a fiduciary responsibility as the Commissioners court to be prudent with the decisions had a we make. Sometimes we do have to make different decisions. I mean, if it's been a track that we have done in the past, occasionally legislation arises had a causes us to have to relook. If we wount have had that, we wouldn't be considering this. I know that gasby 45 presented a real scare to us. In the event that we wouldn't have gotten something done legislatively with that. So it's probably, I mean, something that needs to get in everybody's paycheck, you know, and say, I mean, hey, guqaahwhat right now we have this policy and right now you do have the ability as a retiree to do this. You know, stay tuned. Obviously, I think that we always want to do the right thing for people that work for us and especially people that work for us for 26 years or whatever. So I’m very sympathetic , you know, to that. The unfortunately thing, when things like this happen, there are at times unintended consequences that, okay, if you do this, hat does that open e gate for. I think for one, I know I’m going to want to see what financial impaca$rahmight be, that we can show that this would have in the event that I don't know how many people will come up. Maybe we have a list, guess what there are nine people that didn't get , you know, or say they didn't get something. I would I think the least we do is you do registered mail so that you can get verification that somebody got the word on something. I think I get it.
>> yeah. We did best faith in using the tcrs mailing list because the retirees keep that the most current. Because they want their checks to go to the right place and whatnot. So that wpaharthought there, doing best effort and best faith in using the tcrs mailing list so we captured everyone out there.
>> I think in 2000 were fully I’auaqqhwith blue cross blue shield. The decision made only is whether we continue being fully insured with whatever rate increase there is or going self-insured which is the decision that was made to do in at that point information was brought before the court on eligibility. I think the court adopted some eligibility rules. This thing took place in 2004, I believe it is, when we brought before the court some limitations on retirees who have left theyand wanted to come back on our insurance. So the court did approve in the process, the budget process, some limitations there. I think that's really what we are dealing with here. So whether it's policy or procedure, I believe this did come before the court and court did approve some limits.
>> just trying to be clear. I was here then. Are you saying that under blue cross blue shield we relied essentially on their procedural requirements and once we went self-insured we hadn't developed criteria of our own?
>> what I’m suggesting is that when we were with blue crosah blue shield there were some limitations but when we went self-insured it was up to Travis County armake those decisions. I think thatra$ the difference is abiding by a fully insured carrier or by your self-insured plan. Our summary plan decisions which we brought before the court as well as the later eligibility issues were brought before the court for discussion and approval. The mngs sent --information sent out to retirees, and I believe there were 700, approximately, mar&r'tj.
>> yeah, I think that year. I have a complete list of t mailing list because I always keep them from year to year. From that point forward we didn't use the complete t the . We used just the list of retirees that did come on the plan since that was how the policy read that year. So that was the last year that we did try to encompass everybody and say, come on the plan if you ever want to be on the plan, come on the plan. So that was the intent of the policy made at that time.
>> we did have the correct address of ms. Ivy.
>> yes.
>> I didn't receive it.
>> right.
>> for whatever reason.
>> two separate mailings were doneyes, we do.
>> yes, we do one to let the retirees know what the court is "etjhearing and another one one to let them know what the court decided on rates and send out the enrollment form, and the information was included at the first mailing and discussed at the employee hearing and sent out again in the final mailing.
>> on balance, as a self-insured entity, are we more been rus --generous in the breada$ what we cover in our eligibility than we were under blue cross blue shield?
>> I think we are. I think our benefits are probably greater than when we were fully insured.
>> for example, allergy benefits are greater than they were under blue cross.
>> we also have additional plan designs that we did not have under blue cross and blue shield that make it more affordable. The issue of trying to have a definite, a knowledge of how many people you are going to ensure was part of what prompted the policy that was brought forth. You needed to know how many retirees and employees. We set rates, set plans, we determined benefits on a year-to year basis, can be evidenced by the issue of epo that we brought to you several times during the budget cycle where we don't know if we are going to keep it one rates are decided on an annual basis. Whether we keep the same plans or add other plans are decided on an annual basis. So I think there is plenty of practice that says we decide on an annual basis what the benefits are and who would be covered. But the need to, again, define the people that are in your plan was necessary when we brought this forward because we ay be anuqqhu$pa$q)q increase of retiree especially under 65. We have several people that n the plan that are under 65 and pay their retiree premium along with having insurance at the particular job that they have now, but they have been doing that, been, since this policy passed because they wanted to make sure that they maintained their benefits since retiring.
>> okay.
>> ms. Ivy, any final words for us today?
>> no, I just didn't get the notice.
>> I do think we ought to take this back into executive session when we go for legal advice from ms. Wilson. Thank you very much. Number 33, we'll take into executive session too as well as the other items I will now announce.
we discussed the following items, number 31. Is there a motion?
>> move that the request be denied at the time and that we encourage staff to follow this particular motion to ms. Ivy and that it be denied.
>> second.
>> discussion? Motion to deny the request.
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:09 PM