Travis County Commissioners Court
August 25, 2009,
Item 33
>> judge, can we take 33.
i know we have folks here and 38 may take longer?
>> is 33 pretty short.
i think I committed to 38 at 10:30.
>> I'm sorry.
>> that's all right.
we're a little bit behind.
>> I'm sorry.
>> 33 will be quick?
>> I believe so.
>> well, let's see.
33 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to make changes to the human resources management department's open enrollment procedure to address equity issues in the affidavit requirement for coverage of significant others/domestic partner, sponsored dependent or child of domestic partner.
>> this is hopefully -- will be viewed as a minor change.
it's just to put those who are unmarried couples, whether they be hetrosexual or homosexual, with children or not, on the same footing as couples who are married with regard to the open enrollment process.
so that they can check the no changes button just as a married couple with children can.
>> why isn't that already there?
>> I'm sorry?
>> why isn't that already there?
>> for domestic partner and other has been -- since they first became eligible for coverage for health insurance with the county.
and it serves as a document to evidence ongoing relationships that can change without having the documentation.
and that's why we've asked for it each year is to establish a consistency of the relationship as part of the eligibility process.
>> how is that different, though, than a married employee having to alert the county in the instance of a divorce?
>> if a divorce occurs and the spouse or the non-employee is being terminated, there's documentation that we can fall back on, the divorce decree that we usually ask for.
there's some documentation in that relationship that exists where with other adults in the household or domestic partner does not exist.
and there are certain criteria that has to be met to -- first of all, to be eligible, and second to continue that eligibility.
residing in the household for six months, contributing to the household in some form or fashion, and there's probably six different scenarios that we look at both for marriage as well as domestic partners.
>> what kind of issue would be raised by may simply -- the issue I believe is having to prove it up every year.
would there be an issue in your opinion of once an employee has proved up that relationship to simply rely on that initial affidavit until that employee came, just as a married employee and said that relationship no longer is that status?
>> I think because of the dynamic of the relationship that can begin and end without there being documentation, it makes it --
>> but still a married individual has to provide us the documentation, isn't that correct?
>> yes.
>> of the dissolution of the marriage?
>> yes.
>> so in this instance this would be a non-married individual providing us the documentation of the dissolution of that relationship.
>> if they did so.
>> yes.
we would have to trust those employees just as we trust married employees to provide us the documentation of the dissolution of the relationship.
>> we would.
and because the legal aspects of some coverages not being afforded to domestic partners through the i.r.s.
code, it would be -- it would give us only the original document to work from, not a current document.
>> so is there a liability issue for the county if we were to provide coverage to a domestic partner who no longer met the criteria, but the employee who was the -- who was the covered individual, didn't provide us the documentation?
>> only from the standpoint that they might not be eligibility any longer, they might not meet the eligibility criteria?
>> ms.
wilson.
>> there's two things you ought to take into account in relation to this.
one is that this is being presented as if you were dealing with similar situations, and the way our domestic partner situation is set up, it is not like the equivalent of husband and wife in a different kind of nonlegal situation.
it could be your mother, it could be your father, it could be brother or a sister who is living in the household.
it is any adult, it is not necessarily a committed relationship.
and when I first mentioned the possibility that this was going to be coming to court to cindy furton who does a lot of the administration on this, her response was, well, it seems to me that domestic partners in our sense of the word, not in the sense of committed relationship.
i'm not talking about committed relationship, but what it does in the county circumstance, do seem to change more frequently than spouses.
now, our committed relationships may change no more frequently, and I'm not saying that that's what's changing because I don't have any idea what is, but ours is not just the committed relationship domestic partner, it's any other adult in the household who can meet the criteria, six months sharing responsibility in the household during that time, that sort of thing.
>> my name is robin osbourne.
i work for the shif's office.
i've been employed 21 years.
i've had the same domestic partner for 16 years.
i've never enrolled in this because she has her own insurance; however, I have used it to enroll my mom.
she had a terminal illness and qualified for it.
that situation didn't change until her death; however, I just found out about this this morning, didn't have a lot of time to research, but what I did find is that if my situation were to change, if I did have a domestic partner, under any circumstances enrolled in this, I have a duty to report this the same as if I was married to a man.
so to insinuate that I'm less honest because I have a same sex partner is offensive to me as a person and as an employee.
and to insinuate that I have a less stable relationship because they're a same sex partner and that they may change more often is also offensive.
and I just disagree with this.
and I looked just briefly this morning while I had a chance at the county clerk's -- this may not be relevant.
i'm not an attorney, but the county clerk allows you to register as a domestic partner, and it's my understanding that it's used by the city because the city is a little bit different than what we are.
they allow some of the same benefits, but they don't have the affidavit that we have, so they rely on the county clerk's affidavit and the county clerk did not require that to be renewed.
the termination is upon death or a partner files a dissolution.
so they're not requiring the same stringent guidelines that the county seems to want to adopt.
>> so are we -- did we propose a change for -- or are others asking us to change how we're doing things?
>> it's a request for a change of what the existing policy is.
>> it's my request, your honor.
>> all right.
i didn't want to get real personal about this, but okay.
so open enrollment ended a few days ago.
>> (indiscernible).
>> so we are asked to make a change for the next enrollment cycle?
>> yes.
>> this matter apparently is a little bit more complicated than I thought at first glance.
>> actually, judge, I think -- my name is daniel bradford.
i'm here on my personal matter, but I am an attorney with the Travis County attorney's office.
there are personal matters behind the scenes, but from a legal standpoint there's no legal barrier for you to remove this.
there are no laws that require us to file an affidavit on a yearly basis to maintain that our relationship is still valid.
and this is important to me because my partner is covered under our insurance.
we've been together for 10 years.
and I would say that that's probably longer than a lot of the people that are here and it's offensive to me to have to file an affidavit on a yearly basis to continue to attest to my relationship.
>> so is that the only change, that instead of the affidavit --
>> well, the change would be --
>> lt me finish asking my question.
>> so now we require the affidavit annually.
>> yes.
>> and the request is that the affidavit simply be changed when there's a change.
>> yes.
>> actually, the way that the request is written on the agenda request is that the requirement be removed.
there was no indication that additional requirement would be put into require notification.
>> it was written to say that they don't have to annually prove that they're still married or that their children are still theirs.
>> the other change would be that we would make it possible for the -- for you to click on the no changes button, which may require a little bit of programming.
>> I don't know that I'm going to have a problem with it except I need to understand it.
and if we have a little time, I would think that it would help us to get the right people in the same room and discuss it and try to work through it.
and it would help us to understand exactly what we require today that's objectionable, and then what the recommendation changes are, so we can understand them.
and it could be pretty simple.
>> it is simple.
>> it's not simple today, though.
>> it is.
i would submit that it is.
it's simply --
>> well, I would submit that as county judge I don't understand it now and rather than trying to understand it today and act on it, it makes sense to get the right people in the same room.
>> well, you have the right people.
>> we can do that, judge.
we can come up with some specific language to address the circumstance and bring it back to the Commissioners court for consideration with regard to a policy change or a practice change on the affidavit proving up domestic partnership.
>> okay.
but we should be -- barbara wilson, you're the assistant county attorney owe.
attorney --
>> I have an objection to barbara wilson serving on this.
>> do you plan to be on the committee?
>> I would love to be on the committee.
>> then barbara wilson will be on there too.
>> but I'm suggesting that I'm also inappropriate to have on the committee.
i would ask for somebody who was neutral in this.
>> all right.
if barbara is not on the committee, then who is?
and mr.
bradford has voluntarily withdrawn from committee membership.
>> that's correct.
>> so we have you, we have dan --
>> yes, I would be glad to.
>> and whoever else needs to come from risk management.
is that cindy.
>> yes.
>> and the two of you?
>> certainly.
>> glad to.
>> that's five.
>> you might want to have a non-committed party, someone who has a domestic partner who does not have --
>> I would like to say that twice in my life I've used domestic partnership coverage, once was with janis mutual fund.
it's a very progressive and forward thinking company, and I covered a young boy that I fostered because he didn't have medical insurance.
so it wasn't in a committed relationship.
this is not just about same sex couples.
it covers a multitude of people.
since I've been with the county I've covered my partner, who has since gotten coverage of her own, but it's not just about same sex partners.
i would like to request during this committee that we put together that the data that suggests that domestic partnerships have changes more frequently be present in that, and that we discuss that data and we look at other data related to divorces, changes in dissolution of hetrosexual couple marriages and then this information is -- publicly it's out where everybody can understand what's going on and any findings from the committee are put out and we notify folks to have an opportunity to come out earlier to sus this because this is a huge issue.
and I echo, it's not that difficult.
i submitted on my affidavit --
>> based on what you just described it's a whole lot more difficult.
>> because we're making it difficult.
i didn't have to year to year at janis mutual fund say I still foster this young boy and let me continue to cover him.
i said on my affidavit, should this relationship change for whatever reason, I will notify janis that this relationship has changed.
it's that simple.
the affidavit, the clerk's office, city of Austin based on what the clerk has here, doesn't have to do it more than once.
it's simple.
change the affidavit and change the process.
it's not that difficult.
we are going to make it difficult.
we are going to make it a huge process.
it doesn't have to be.
>> any final words, mr.
mansour?
>> I think there are other dynamics here.
and this is not intended for domestic partners only.
we have other adults in the household covered, that could be a child over 26 years of age, it can be a parent, it can be a sibling.
there are other dynamics involved.
and so it wasn't to infer that this was just for domestic partners.
we require each year for that affidavit to be completed, even for the other adult categories, but I look forward to working on the committee.
and one other thing I would want to mention, the city of Austin does require an affidavit and it was modeled after the affidavit we use.
they do not require one each year, but they do require one.
>> and just to add again, I've never used it for my domestic partner, I used to for my mom when I was her primary caregiver and it was a little offensive to say my mom is still alive, my mom is still alive.
>> it may be something that we can change fairly quickly.
how long do we think it will take, mr.
mansour?
>> I would think we could meet next week and have it on the court the following week.
>> two weeks?
>> that's September 8th.
all right.
do we have the committee set?
>> you bet.
>> somebody from legal?
>> john is going to find someone.
>> john is going to find someone.
any objection to that?
the two of you, dan and cindy.
noose five people.
-- that's five people.
>> the assistant county attorney will make five.
is that enough?
>> uh-huh.
>> thank you for your time.
>> go off and do good.
we'll see you in two weeks.
>> thanks for coming by on short notice.
>> now, unfortunately we have lost control of our time --
>> [ laughter ]
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:
Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:07 PM
