MFP Item 3
June 17,2010
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Management and Fiscal Policy Committee
n
Fire and
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
~':1
Worksession:
Expedited Bill 30-10, Personnel - Equal Benefits
Rescue Employees
Expedited Bill 30-10, Personnel
Equal Benefits - Fire and Rescue Employees,
sponsored by the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was introduced on
May 4,2010. A public hearing was held on June 15.
Background
The County has a longstanding policy, in law and practice, against employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Bill 28-99, effective March 1, 2000, extended equal
benefits to a same sex domestic partner of a County employee that is offered to an employee's
spouse. As a result of collective bargaining in 2001, the Executive agreed with the union
representing police officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 35 (FOP), to extend equal
benefits for an opposite sex domestic partner of a police officer. This collective bargaining
agreement was approved by the Council and enacted into law.
The Executive agreed to a similar provision with the union representing fire and rescue
employees, the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, International Association
of Fire Fighters, Local 1664 (IAFF) in 2002. However, this agreement was never approved by
the Council and enacted into law. The Office of Human Resources has been following the
collective bargaining agreement with the IAFF since 2002. There are currently 49 members of
the fire and rescue bargaining unit who are receiving benefits for a domestic partner of the
opposite sex and 7 members who are receiving benefits for a same sex domestic partner.
Bill 30-10 would amend the law to implement the 2002 collective bargaining agreement
with the IAFF by providing health and insurance benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of
employees in the fire and rescue services bargaining unit.
Public Hearing
Stuart Weisberg, Office of Human Resources, testifying on behalf of the Executive,
supported the Bill. Mr. Weisberg recommended a technical amendment to §33-22(c). See ©8-9.
There were no other speakers.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues
1. What is the fiscal impact of the Bill?
The fiscal impact statement at ©5 concludes that the Bill would not have a fiscal impact
on the County because the County has been providing equal benefits to an opposite sex domestic
partner of fire and rescue bargaining unit members since the collective bargaining agreement was
negotiated in 2002. At the request of Council staff, OMB provided a cost estimate for providing
equal benefits to the same sex domestic partner of the 49 fire and rescue bargaining unit
members currently enjoying this benefit. OMB estimated that the County spent an additional
$171,850 providing this benefit for these 49 employees in FYI0. See ©6-7.
2. Should the Council approve the Executive's technical amendment?
The Executive recommended the following technical amendment:
Add the following after line 1
J
at
©2:
(G)
not be related by blood or affinity in a way that would disqualify
them from marriage under State law if the employee and partner
were (or, for members of the police bargaining unit or the fire and
rescue services bargaining unit, are) opposite sexes;
Council staff recommendation:
approve the technical amendment.
3. Should the Council enact BiIl30-10?
Providing equal benefits for same sex domestic partners furthers the County's legitimate
interest in eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Extending equal benefits
to opposite sex domestic partners does not. The extension of equal benefits to opposite sex
domestic partners is simply an employee benefit that may be appropriate for the County to
negotiate with its own employees. The County Executive did just that with the IAFF in 2002.
Unfortunately, the Executive did not propose legislation to the Council in 2002 to implement this
negotiated provision. Although the Council is not required to enact this Bill to implement this
agreement, 49 bargaining unit members have already received this benefit.
Council staff
recommendation:
approve the Bill as introduced.
This packet contains:
Expedited Bill 30-10
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Fiscal Impact Statement
OMB cost estimate
Testimony of Stuart Weisberg
F:ILAWIBILLSI\ 030 Personnel-Benefits For Opposite Sex IAFFIMFP Memo.Doc
Circle
#
1
3
4
5
6
8
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
----l::3~0-=--1~0!._:_=_-=_
Concerning: Personnel - Equal Benefits
- Fire and Rescue Employees
Revised: April 12. 2010 Draft No. _1_
Introduced:
May 4. 2010
Expires:
November 4, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
...!N..:.::o~n~e
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(1)
provide benefits to an opposite sex domestic partner of a member of the fire and
rescue bargaining unit; and
(2)
generally amend the law regarding benefits for domestic partners.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33, Personnel and Human Resources
Sections 33-22
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act.'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill 30-10
1
Sec.
1.
Section 33-22 is amended as follows:
33-22. Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee
2
3
4
*
(c)
*
*
Requirements for domestic partnership.
To establish a domestic
partnership, the employee and the employee's partner must either:
(1)
satisfy all of the following requirements:
(A)
be the same sex, unless the employee is a member of the
police bargaining unit or the fire and rescue employee
bargaining unit;
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
*
Sec. 2. Effective Date.
*
*
12
13
14
The Council declares that this legislation is necessary for the immediate
protection of the public interest. The amendment to Section 33-22 in Section 1
takes effect on July 1, 2002.
Approved:
15
16
17
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Date
18
19
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
20
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
21
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
22
23
24
0LAW\BILLS\I
030
Personnel-Benefits For Opposite Sex IAFF\BiII I.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Expedited Bill 30-10
Personnel- Equal Benefits Fire and Rescue Employees
DESCRIPTION:
The legislation provides health and insurance benefits to opposite sex
domestic partners for members of the fire and rescue services bargaining
unit.
The collective bargaining agreement between the County and the
Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1664, AFL-CIO, that became
effective July 1, 2002, provides that all health and insurance benefits
shall
be
extended to opposite-sex domestic partners of employees
covered under the agreement. While reviewing Council Bill 37-09,
which relates to providing benefits to same sex domestic partners of
employees of County contractors, it came to light that the County had
never amended Sec. 33-22(c)(lXa) of the County Code to add opposite
sex domestic partnerships for members of the fire bargaining unit.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
To correct an oversight that occurred in 2002.
COORDINATION:
Office of Human Resources and Finance
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Management and Budget
N/A
N/A
Stuart Weisberg, Office of Human Resources (240-777-5154)
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
NI
A
PENALTIES:
NI
A
F:\LAw\BILLS\1030 Personnel-Benefits For OppOSite Sex IAFF\LRRDoc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Isiah
County Executive
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Isiah Leggett, County
Executiv--P~
Expedited Bill to Provide Benefits for Opposite Sex Domestic Partners
I am attaching for Council introduction an Expedited Bill to provide health and
insurance benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of employees in the fire and rescue services
bargaining unit.
This bill corrects an oversight that occurred in 2002. The collective bargaining
agreement between the County and the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association,
International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1664, AFL-CIO, that became effective July 1,
2002, provides that all health and insurance benefits shall be extended to opposite-sex domestic
partners of employees covered under the agreement. While reviewing Council Bill 37-09, which
relates to providing benefits to domestic partners of County contractors, it came to light that the
County had never amended Sec. 33-22(c)(1)(a) ofthe County Code to add opposite sex domestic
partnerships for members ofthe fire bargaining unit.
Attachments
IL: sw
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
V
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
A.~D
BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
II
056542
Joseph
F.
Beach
Director
DID
MEMORANDUM
May 3, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, President, County
counc~~
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Office
ofMan~and
Budget
Council Bil130-1 0, Personnel- Benefits for Opposite Sex Domestic Partners - Fire
anti
Rescue Services Bargaining Unit Employees
~
0..
-<
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement to
the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
This legislation provides benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of employees in the fire
and rescue bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement between the County and the Montgomery
County Career Fire Fighters Association, International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1664,
AFL-CIO that became effective July 1, 2002, provides that all health and insurance benefits shall be
extended to opposite-sex domestic partners of employees covered under the agreement. It has recently come
to light that the County had never amended Section 33-22 of the County Code to add coverage for opposite
sex domestic partnerships for members of the IAFF. This bill corrects that oversight.
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
This bill will not have a fiscal or economic impact on the County since the County has been
providing benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of employees in the IAFF since 2002, under the terms of
the bargaining agreement.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: Stuart Weisberg, Office of
Human Resources; Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance, and Lori O'Brien, Office of Management and
Budget.
JFB:lob
c:
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Dee Gonzalez, Offices ofthe County Executive
Joseph Adler, Director, Office of Human Resources
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
Wesley Girting, Office ofHuman Resources
Belinda Fulco, Office of Human Resources
Stuart Weisberg, Office of Human Resources
John Cuff, Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor' Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Drummer, Bob
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
O'Brien, Lori
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:16AM
Drummer, Bob
Espinosa, Alex; Girling, Wes; Fulco, Belinda
Subject: response to Council question about the cost of opposite-sex domestic partner health, dental, vision, .
and prescription coverage
Bob - Using data provided to me by OHR, I've estimated the cost of providing opposite sex
domestic partners' coverage to Montgomery County employees who are IAFF union members.
This estimate comes with a number of caveats and assumptions:
• Most of the health coverage provided by Montgomery County is self-funded.
Although the County budgets for its self-funded plans in much the same way as
purchased plans, if a covered individual does not use the plan, the actual cost of
providing the coverage does not increase. These estimates will be based on the
budgeted amounts for each type of coverage.
• We have no way of knowing what level of coverage or what type of coverage an
employee would choose absent the presence of the domestic partner and any
covered children of the domestic partner.
For this exercise, I am assuming that the employee would choose the
same coverage (e.g., Caremark Hi Option, Care mark Standard Option,
Kaiser HMO, etc) whether or not domestic partner coverage was provided.
I am also assuming that they would choose the coverage necessary to
cover everyone already covered who is not in the plan by virtue of being a
domestic partner or a domestic partner's child. For example, if
Montgomery County provides coverage to an employee, an employee's
child, a domestic partner, and three of the domestic partner's children, I
am assuming that without the domestic partner coverage, they would
require self+l coverage instead of family coverage. If the employee had
two children instead of one, I would assume that with or without the
domestic partner coverage, family coverage would be necessary.
If an employee and an employee's domestic partner were the only two
people covered under Montgomery County's plan, the level of coverage
would go from self+ 1 to an employee only plan. The same level of
coverage would result if the only children covered were the domestic
partner's children (i.e., the coverage would go from family coverage to an
employee-only plan).
• We also have no way of knowing what would happen if the domestic partner's
coverage were not provided: would the employee simply get married? If this
were to happen, the requirement that opposite sex domestic partner coverage be
provided would not result in any additional cost.
6/15/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of2
• For this exercise, I am assuming that the employee and the domestic
partner would not get married absent the provision of the domestic partner
coverage.
Given these assumptions, under the current provision of domestic partner coverage for opposite­
sex partnerships the 52 employees' health, dental, vision, and prescription coverage for which
this type of coverage is provided cost the County an estimated $659,900 per year (2010).
If
domestic partner coverage were not provided, that same coverage would cost $488,050.
Therefore, given all the assumptions discussed above, the opposite-sex domestic partner
coverage provided to members of the IAFF cost $171,850 for FYlO. Please remember, however,
that there is no incremental cost for providing coverage for domestic partners because it is
already being provided.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Lori
J.
O'Brien
Management and Budget Specialist
Office of Management and Budget
Montgomery County Government
240-777-2788
6115/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
Joseph Adler
Director
June 15,2010
TO:
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
Stuart Weisberg, Labor Relations Advisor
Qt .. __-\.
Office of Human Resources
~
U.
FROM:
"\ \ \
fll
\J\l
><.J..,J..I..,;u..J
II':}
/'\
~
.j:J
r\
/I""':
SUBJECT:
Testimony for Public Hearing on Bill 30-10, Personne1- Equal Benefits
and Rescue Employees
Fire
Good afternoon Council Members, I am Stuart Weisberg, the Labor Relations
Advisor in the Office of Human Resources, and it is a pleasure for me to appear at this hearing
on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett, to express the Executive's support for Bill 30-10,
which would provide to opposite sex domestic partners of employees in the fire and rescue
services bargaining unit the same benefits that spouses receive.
This bill corrects an oversight that occurred in 2002. The collective bargaining
agreement between the County and the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1664
that became effective July 1, 2002, as well as successor agreements, provide that all health and
insurance benefits shall be extended to opposite sex domestic partners of employees covered
under the agreement. While reviewing Council Bill 37-09, which relates to providing benefits to
domestic partners of County contractors, it came to light that the County had never amended
Section 33-22(c)(1 )(A) of the County Code to add opposite sex domestic partnerships for
members of the fire bargaining unit. This bill would authorize and codify the current practice of
providing benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of fire and rescue services bargaining unit
employees. The County currently provides benefits to opposite sex domestic partners for 49 fire
bargaining unit employees.
There is one technical amendment, attached to my testimony, which I would like
to propose on behalf of the Executive. This amendment simply extends to opposite sex domestic
partners of fire and rescue services bargaining unit members the current prohibition on domestic
partners being related by blood or affinity in a way that would disqualify them from marriage
under State law, contained in Section 33-22(c)(I)(G) of the County Code.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
®
101 Monroe Street • Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-5000
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive Amendment 1
Insert amendment beginning on line
11:
(G)
not be related by blood or affinity in a way that would disqualify them
from marriage under State law if the employee and partner were (or, for members of the
police bargaining unit[,] or the fire and rescue services bargaining unit, are) opposite
sexes.
*
*
*
(j)