GO Item 2
June 23,2016
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
June 21,2016
TO:
FROM:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
Robert
H.
Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
ffij
Worksession:
Bill 16-16, Personnel - Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee
SUBJECT:
- Repeal
Bill 16-16, Personnel- Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee - Repeal, sponsored by
Lead Sponsor Councilmember Leventhal and Co-sponsor Councilmember Katz, was introduced
on April 19,2016. A public hearing was held on May 3.
Bill 16-16 would repeal the law requiring the County to provide domestic partner benefits
to eligible County employees.
Background
Bill 28-99, Personnel- Benefits for Employee's Domestic Partner, enacted on November
30, 1999 and signed into law on December 3, 1999, extended health and insurance benefits to a
same-sex domestic partner of an employee. According to the legislative history, sponsors and
supporters ofBi1l28-99 argued that the law was needed to correct an inequity in benefits provided
to gay and lesbian County employees, compared to other employees. They argued that it is unfair
to provide benefits for an employee's spouse but not for the partner of an employee in a long-term,
committed, same-sex relationship. This benefits inequity conflicted
with
the County's
longstanding law and policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
1
Bill 28-99 was
a civil rights law that was enacted outside of the collective bargaining process.
Bill 25-01, Personnel- Retirement - Amendments, extended opposite sex domestic partner
benefits to members of the police bargaining unit on November 1,2001. Bill 30-10, Personnel­
Equal Benefits - Fire and Rescue Employees, extended opposite sex domestic partner benefits to
members of the fire and rescue bargaining unit. Each of these laws was enacted at a time when
same-sex marriage was prohibited in Maryland. Maryland began to recognize same-sex marriage
on January 1, 20l3.
1
The
County first prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1984.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The legalization of same-sex marriage in Maryland created a new inequity for employers
who provided domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples only. Governor O'Malley resolved
this inequity by eliminating all domestic partner benefits for State employees soon after the State
legalized same-sex marriages. Although Maryland began recognizing same-sex marriages in
2013, many States did not. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to marry is a
fundamental right that must be provided to same-sex couples in
Obergefell
v.
Hodges,
135 S.Ct.
2584 (2015). Speaking for the Court, Justice Kennedy said:
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental
right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not
be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex
couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. 135 S.Ct. at 2604-2605.
The
Obergefell
case again changed the legal framework underlying the County's domestic
partner benefits law. Except for members of the police and fire bargaining units, a County
employee with a same-sex domestic partner can obtain health and insurance benefits for a partner
without marriage and an employee with a domestic partner of the opposite sex must marry his or
her domestic partner to obtain these benefits. The original purpose ofthe domestic partner benefits
law no longer applies because same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marry in all States.
Many States have reacted to this change in law by eliminating all domestic partner benefits.
See the
Stateline
article reviewing these reactions at ©8-13. In addition to the State of Maryland,
the Montgomery County Board of Education eliminated all domestic partner benefits for its
employees after same-sex marriage was legalized in Maryland. Howard County did the same for
its employees. Prince George's County never provided domestic partner benefits for its
employees.
2
In contrast to this trend to eliminate domestic partner benefits, the Executive
submitted a Bill to the Council, introduced as Bill 13-16 on April 12, that would provide opposite
sex domestic partner benefits to employees represented by MCGEO and unrepresented employees.
Bill 16-16 would resolve this inequity by eliminating domestic partner benefits for all County
employees. The Bill would permit an employee or retiree who is receiving or has applied for
domestic partner benefits on or before April 19,2016 to continue to receive these benefits.
Lead Sponsor Councilmember Leventhal explained his reasons for introducing this Bill
and related Bill 17-16 repealing the equal benefits law for County contractors in an April 13
memorandum at ©7.
Council Resolution No. 18-461
On April 26, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution No. 18461 indicating its intent to
approve or reject provisions of the MCGEO collective bargaining agreement subject to Council
review. The Council indicated its intent to reject the provision in the MCGEO agreement that
would require the expansion of domestic partner benefits to opposite sex couples. See ©14-16.
The Executive and MCGEO submitted a revised agreement that delayed the starting date for a
The District of Columbia continues to provide domestic partner benefits for its employees, including opposite sex
domestic partner benefits.
2
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
negotiated second service increment, but did not attempt to add back the provision extending
domestic partner benefits to opposite sex couples. On May 16, 2016, the Council rejected this
provision of the agreement in Resolution No. 18-475. See ©17-20.
Public Hearing
The Council held a public hearing on Bill 16-16 on May 3, 2016. Both Jeff BuddIe,
President of IAFF Local 1664, and Torrie Cooke, President of FOP Lodge 35 opposed the Bill.
Each union president argued that health benefits are subject to collective bargaining and that the
appropriate method of modifying these benefits for bargaining unit members is through collective
bargaining.
Issues
1.
Does the Council have the authority under the collective bargaining law to repeal domestic
partner benefits outside of collective bargaining?
The Court of Appeals recently confirmed that the Council retains the authority to reject
provisions of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement subject to its review outside of the
bargaining process in
Fraternal Order ofPolice, Lodge
35 v.
Montgomery County,
437 Md. 618
(2014). The Court held that the Council had the authority to modify the health insurance provisions
in the collective bargaining agreement to save money without bargaining with the union
representing the employees. In this case, the repeal of the domestic partner benefits for these
employees is estimated to save the County $215,882 over the next 6 fiscal years. See the Fiscal
and Economic Impact Statement at ©21-25.
2. How would the Bill affect employees who are currently receiving domestic partner
benefits?
Bill 16-16 contains a grandfather clause that would permit an employee who is currently
receiving domestic partner benefits or who has applied for these benefits before April 19, 2016 to
continue to receive these benefits.
3. Should the Council repeal domestic partner benefits for County employees?
The original purpose of the law was to extend these "marriage benefits" to same sex
couples who were unable to obtain them because same sex marriage was not recognized in
Maryland. Since same sex marriage was recognized in Maryland in 2013 and the Supreme Court
extended the right of a same sex couple to marry throughout the nation in 2015, the original
purpose of the law has evaporated. The extension of domestic partner benefits to opposite sex
couples was an attempt to re-create a level playing field for opposite sex couples who declined to
get married.
In
2016, the continuation of the domestic partner benefits is no longer necessary to
ensure that same sex or opposite sex couples can extend benefits to their partner. Council staff
recommendation: enact the Bill as introduced.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This packet contains:
Bill
16-16
Legislative Request Report
Councilmember Leventhal April 13 Memorandum
Stateline, September 11, 2015
Resolution No. 18-461
Resolution No. 18-475
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Circle #
1
6
7
8
14
17
21
F:\LAW\BILLS\I616 Personnel- Benefits For Domestic Partner - RepeaJ\GO Memo.Docx
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. ----!.1.:.,6-....!,1.:.,6_______
---=---=-­
Concerning: Personnel - Benefits for
Domestic Partner of Employee­
Repeal
Revised: April 19. 2016 Draft No.
~
Introduced: April 19. 2016
Expires:
October 19. 2017
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: . . :N. !.!o: .!.n! : :e_ _ _ _ __
Ch, _ _ Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
I
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Councilmember Leventhal and Co-Sponsor: Councilmember Katz
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
repeal the law requiring the County to provide domestic partner benefits for certain
employees; and
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
Bill No. 16-16
1
Sec. 1. Section 33-22 is amended as follows:
33-22. [Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee.] Reserved.
2
3
4
[(a)
Findings and purpose.
The County has a longstanding policy, in law
and practice, against employment discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
The County believes it is unfair to treat employees
5
6
7
8
9
differently based solely on whether the employee's partner is legally
recognized as a spouse.
The County finds that many private and public employees provide or
plan to provide benefits for the domestic partners of their employees.
Providing domestic partner benefits will significantly enhance the
County's ability to recruit and retain highly qualified employees and
will promote employee loyalty and workplace diversity.]
[(b)
10
11
12
13
14
General rule.
Any benefit the County provides for the spouse
(including "widow" or other equivalent tenn) of a County employee or
the spouse's dependents must be provided, in the same manner and to
the same extent, for the domestic partner of a County employee and the
partner's dependents, respectively. Benefits provided to an employee's
domestic partner or partner's dependent must include benefits
equivalent to those available for an employee's spouse or spouse's
dependent under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1985 (COBRA), the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and
other federal laws that apply to County employment benefits.]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
[(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:
25
F:\LAW\BILLS\1616 Personnel - Benefits For Domestic Partner ­
Repeal\Bill 3.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 16-16
26
27
(A)
be the same sex, unless the employee is a member of the
police bargaining unit or the fire and rescue employee
bargaining unit;
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
(B)
share a close personal relationship and be responsible for
each other's welfare;
(C)
have shared the same legal residence for at least 12
months;
(D)
(E)
be at least 18 years old;
have voluntarily consented to the relationship, without
fraud or duress;
35
36
37
(F)
not be married to, or in a domestic partnership with, any
other person;
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(G)
not be related by blood or affmity 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;
(H)
(I)
be legally competent to contract; and
share sufficient financial and legal obligations to satisfy
subsection (d)(2); or
(2)
legally register the domestic partnership, if:
(A)
a domestic partnership registration system exists in the
jurisdiction where the employee resides; and
(B)
the Director ofHuman Resources determines that the legal
requirements for registration are substantially similar to
the requirements of this Section.]
47
48
49
50
51
F:\LAW\BILLS\1616 Personnel - Benefits For Domestic Partner ­
Repeal\Bill 3.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 16-16
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
[(
d)
Evidence of domestic partnership. The employee must provide, in a
form acceptable to the Office of Human Resources, the following:
(1)
either:
(A)
an affidavit signed by both the employee and the
employee's partner under penalty of perjury declaring that
they satisfy the requirements of subsection ( c)(
1);
or
(B)
an official copy of the domestic partnership registration
described in subsection (c)(2); and
59
60
61
(2)
evidence that the employee and partner share items described in
at least 2 of the following subparagraphs:
(A)
(B)
62
63
64
65
ajoint housing lease, mortgage, or deed;
joint ownership of a motor vehicle;
a joint checking or credit account;
designation of the partner as a primary beneficiary of the
employee's life insurance, retirement benefits, or residuary
estate under a will; or
(C)
(D)
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
(E)
designation of the partner as holding a durable power of
attorney for health care decisions regarding the employee.
This paragraph does not apply to a qualified, registered domestic
partnership under subsection (c)(2).]
[(e)
Termination of domestic partnership. An employee must notify the
Director of Human Resources within 30 days after:
(l)
74
75
76
77
termination of the domestic partnership by death or dissolution;
or
(2)
any other change in circumstances that disqualifies the
relationship as a domestic partnership under this Section.
F:\LAw\BILLS\1616 Personnel- Benefits For Domestic Partner-
Repeal\Bill 3.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 16-16
78
79
80
81
When the domestic partnership ends, the Director must terminate or
continue any benefit in the same manner and to the same extent that the
County terminates or continues, respectively, the benefit for a former
spouse in equivalent circumstances (such as dissolution of a partnership
and divorce).]
[(t)
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Application to retirees.
In this Section, "employee" includes both
active and retired employees.]
Sec. 2. Transition.
The amendments to Section 33-22 made in Section 1 do not apply to an
employee or retiree who is receiving domestic partner benefits or has applied for
domestic partner benefits before April 19, 2016.
89
90
91
Approved:
92
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Date
93
Approved:
94
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
95
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
96
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
97
Date
F:\LAW\BILLS\1616 Personnel - Benefits For Domestic Partner ­
Repea1\BiII3.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Personnel
Bi1116-16
Benefits for Domestic Partner ofEmployee
-
Repeal
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 16-16 would repeal the law requiring the COWlty to provide
domestic partner health and retirement benefits for all COWlty
employees.
The domestic partner benefit law was intended as a civil rights law to
provide a COWlty employee with the right to add a same-sex domestic
partner to the County group health and retirement benefits in an era
when same-sex marriage was not recognized in Maryland. Same-sex
marriage is now recognized in all 50 States pursuant to a recent
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Eliminate domestic partner benefits for County employees.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
Office of Human Resources and Finance
FISCAL IMPACT:
Office of Management and Budget
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Office of Finance
NIA
Maryland and the MCPS have eliminated domestic partner benefits
for their employees.
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
APPLICATION
WITmN
MUNICIPALITIES:
NIA
PENALTIES:
NI
A
F:\LAW\BILLS\1616 Personnel- Benefits For Domestic Partner - Repeal\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE.
MAFf'l'LAND
GEORGE L£YENTHAL
COUNCI\...MEMSIER
M E M 0 RAN DUM
April
13, 2016
AT-LARGE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:.
Couneilmembers
. George L, Lev,nthal
(,tJ-­
Bills
for introduction re:
domestic
partner
benefits
1
will be introducing
the
two attached bills and welcome your co-sponsorship.
At the request ofthe County Executhfe.. regislqtion was introduced this week to extend
domestit partner benefits to all county em.ployees. I can't go along with this in
2{)16.
The
county has provided health benefits
to
members of the police union who register as non­
married domestic partners (regardless of whether they are straight or gay. or lesbian) since
2001,
and to members of the firefighters' union since
2010.
This
bm
would expand the benefit
to members of MCGEO, the Montgomery County Government Employee Organization.
I strongly support marriage equality, and
it
m~kes
perfect sense to me that when marriage
became legal in Maryland for gays and lesbiansi former Governor Q!Malley eliminated domestic
partner-benefits for all state emp1oyees, and Montgomery County Public Schools eliminated
them for MCPS employees. Mr. leggett's bill, whIch I oppose, goes i:nthe
oppositedir~ction,
extending health benefits to non-·marrJed employees who live together at an estimated cost to
taxpayers of
$4.8
million over the next six years.
Domestic partner benefits made sense when marriage wasiltegal for gays and lesbians, but
they don't make sense today. We should recognize that times have changed and taxpayers,
should not have to. continue paying the cost ofan historic artifact. I am strongly .committed to
universa.I access to health care but this
Ci3"
be achieve<4through other
rrlE~ans,
including getting
married!
The first of the
two
bills would repeal domestic parthet benefits for county employees. The
second bill would repeal the
Jaw
requiring a county contractor to provide same-$ex domestic
partner benefits to
its
employees,
Please let me know
if
you have questlons or would like to co-sponsor either or both bills.
STELLA
e.
WERNER
OF'FlCE
BUfLOrNS
100
MAR¥LAl\to.AvSNUE,
6:tt" Ft.OOR,
ROCl<.VIl..
;i.ErMARVLANOZOS50
240/7"17-7811
OR
2401777-7900, TTYi,401777-7ef4, FAX2401777-79S9
WWW.MONTGOM£RYCOUNT.l.MO.$GVf.colJ.NCtL
~
PRINT!!:D ON RI!(:YCUUlhl"l!1It
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4/7/2016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling. States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
THE
PEvV
CHARITABLE
TRUSTS
The Pew Charitable Trusts
I
Research
&
Analysis
I
Stateline
I
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling. States
Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States
Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
September 11,2015
By Rebecca Beitsch
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4/7/2016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling. States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage has some state and
local governments reconsidering their domestic partner benefits.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, some
states that offer health and retirement benefits to their employees' domestic partners
are considering changing those policies, in large part to save money or avoid
discrimination lawsuits.
Before the ruling, 34 percent of state and local governments allowed unmarried same­
sex couples to receive health care benefits, while 28 percent did so for domestic
partners of the opposite sex, according to a study of public sector benefits by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Based on what happened in states that legalized gay marriage on their own, those
numbers are about to dwindle.
Maryland ended domestic partner benefits for state employees, which it offered only to
same-sex couples, just a few months after it legalized same-sex marriage in 2013.
Arizona did the same after its legalization in 2014. Alaska still offers same-sex domestic
partner benefits to the roughly 6,000 state employees it covers, but it is now reviewing
that policy. The majority of Alaska state employees get their health insurance through
state-funded union health trusts, and the state's largest union, the Alaska State
Employees Association, ended same-sex domestic partner benefits for the more than
8,500 state and municipal employees it covers.
Connecticut and Delaware never offered domestic partner benefits to their workers, but
they did allow those in civil unions to add their partners to their health and retirement
plans. The two states scrapped those benefits once same-sex couples could marry.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
41712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
Of the 13 states that prohibited same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court's June·
ruling (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas), only Michigan
offered anything similar to domestic partner benefits, as employees could add to their
plan one adult they were not related to. Matthew Fedorchuk with the Michigan Civil
Service Commission, which oversees state benefits, said the fate of those benefits
could be hashed out in ongoing labor negotiations.
Government workers are likely to see more changes than those in the private sector.
Bruce Elliott, manager of compensation and benefits for the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM), cited a survey of 153 companies by Mercer, a health
care advocacy group, which found that although some companies had plans to get rid of
their domestic partner benefits, many were not planning changes. Of the 19 percent that
offered domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples, 23 percent said they would drop
the option in the next year, while another 23 percent said they would do so over the next
two or three years. The majority of companies offered domestic partner benefits to both
homosexual and heterosexual couples, and 62 percent of those said they were not
planning any changes.
Elliott said domestic partner benefits may be more vulnerable within state and local
government, where competition over employees isn't as fierce as in the private sector
and where leaders have been under pressure to keep finances in check since the
recession.
A Question of Fairness
Cathryn Oakley, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights
advocacy group, said the group is encouraging public and private employers to keep
offering domestic partner benefits. But she said employers that offer domestic partner
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4f712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
benefits exclusively to same-sex couples should extend them to heterosexual couples
to avoid discrimination lawsuits.
That risk is part of the reason the capital city of Annapolis, Maryland, decided to end its
domestic partner benefit program.
"We had added it because the law didn't treat people equally," Paul Rensted, former
human resources manager for the city, said of the program, created in 2010. Now all city
employees must be married to add an adult to their benefits package, and Rensted said
couples were given six months' notice, with four employees ultimately marrying.
Many in the gay rights community say keeping domestic partner benefits would
continue to benefit some in the gay community as well as other non-traditional families.
But straight couples would continue to be the biggest user of the benefits, they say.
"Millennials are waiting longer to get married, but that doesn't mean they're not living
together-they're not all living with mom and dad," said SHRM's Elliott.
Nancy Polikoff, a family law professor at American University Washington College of
Law, said she likes "plus one" poliCies that allow employees to take care of their
families, whether it be a spouse, a partner or an aging relative.
"The purpose of providing benefits is to help employees fund the financial and
emotional obligations in their homes, and marriage is not always a part of that," she
said.
She pointed to Salt Lake City's plan as a model. City employees can add any adult to
their plan as long as they live together.
Jodi Langford. who oversees the benefits program for the city, said it has been used to
cover parents, siblings and unmarried children older than 26 who would otherwise age
out of their parents' health insurance plans. Of the 60 people on the plan before same­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4f712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling. States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
sex marriage was made legal, only about 10 have switched to spousal benefits.
"If we stop, we would have parents, siblings, boyfriends and girlfriends who would be
without benefits," Langford said. While the program is secure for now, she said there's
been some talk about reviewing it within the next year.
In Florida, public universities are planning to review their domestic partner benefits.
Because only spouses are eligible for state-funded bene'fits, state universities had to
come up with creative solutions to offer benefits to gay employees' domestic partners. It
was an anonymous gift that covered the additional cost of adding an adult beneficiary to
a health plan at Florida State University (FSU) starting in 2014, while the University of
North Florida (UNF) began covering the additional cost to employees through its
fundraising foundation in
2006.
Spokesmen for both universities said the programs played a role in attracting talent.
UNF is winding down its program, which had only been offered to same-sex couples,
said Vice President and Chief of Staff Tom Serwatka.
'When we went to this, we did so on the basis that heterosexual couples had a choice
whether they wanted to marry and understood the full implication of that choice.
Homosexual couples didn't have that choice." Now that they do, Serwatka said, it
makes less sense for the university to raise private funds to pay for the benefits .
. "The university wasn't trying to change the idea of marriage as the policy for the state,
and state funding required marriage," he said.
FSU is reviewing its program, which only paid for health insurance for domestic partners
who could not get insurance through their work, said spokesman Dennis Schnittker.
"The gift was made under the belief of the donor that the state would be funding the
benefit in the near future," he said.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
41712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Reconsider Domestic Partner Benefits
No Change?
In some states, however, domestic partner benefits are likely to continue.
California's domestic partner benefit statutes remain intact, and in Massachusetts the
policy is part of a still-standing executive order. Maine and Vermont, which was the first
state to offer domestic partner benefits,' are not planning to change their programs.
"We wouldn't just get rid of it because same-sex marriage has come about," said Tom
Cheney, deputy commissioner for Vermont's Department of Human Resources. ''The
state of Vermont has long seen the value in offering domestic partner benefits to
couples of all types. It's a useful recruitment and retention tool for the state as an
. employer."
Elliott believes it's too early to know what most employers-both public and private­
will do with domestic partner benefits.
"Once we get past this year into next year's open enrollment, we're going to see some
real change. The tea leaves haven't dried yet," he said.
NEWER)
Editor's Picks From Around the Web
(OLDER
Editor's Picks From Around the Web
pLACES
United States
TAGS
Business of Government, Justice, Labor, Social Issues
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Resolution No.: 18-461
~~~------------
Introduced:
April 19, 2016
Adopted:
April 26, 20
i
6
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
SUBJECT:
Collective Bargaining Agreements with Municipal
&
County Government
Employees Organization
Background
1.
Section 511 of the County Charter authorizes the COlinty Council
to
provide by law for
collective bargaining, with arbitration or other impasse resolution procedures, with
authorized representatives of County Government employees.
Chapter 33, Article
vn
of the County Code implements Section 511 of the Charter and
provide.s for collective bargaining by the County Executive with the certified
representatives ofCounty employees and for review ofthe resulting contract by the County
Council.
On April 1, 2016,
the
County Executive submitted
to
the
Council a collective bargaining
agreements between the County government and Municipal and, County Government
Employees Organization effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. A copy of the
Agreement is attached to this Resolution.
The Executive has submitted to the Council the ternis and conditions of the Agreements
that require or may require an appropriation of funds or changes in any County law or
regulation.
The joint Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee and Education Committee
considered the Agreements and made recommendations on April 21, 2016.
The County Council has considered these terms and conditions and is required by law to
indicate on or before May 1 its intention regarding the appropriation of funds or any
legislation or regulations requireQ to implement the agreements.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2
Resolution No.: 18-461
Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following
resolution:
. The County Council intends
to
approve the· following provisions for FYI7:
1.
2.
3.
0.5% general wage adjustment payable on the first pay period after July 1,2016.
0.5% general wage adjustment payable on the first pay period after January 1, 2017.
3.5% service increments for all eligible bargaining unit members on their
anniversary date.
3% longevity increment for eligible
bargainin~
unit members.
1% lump sum for each eligible bargaining unit member who is
at
the top of grade
and not eligible for a longevity step, payable on the
frrst
pay period after Ju1y I,
2016.
Tuition Assistance up to $150,000.
25 individual and 7 job class classification studies.
Inclusion of a Pharmacy Benefit Management Programs.
Additional $0.25 per hour for seasonal employee.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The County Council intends
to
reject the following provisions for FYI7:
1.
3.5% seivice increment for each bargaining unit member whose service increment
was deferred during FYl1, FY12, or FY13, and who is otherwise eligible, effective
the first pay period after May 1, 2017.
Domestic partner benefits for an opposite sex domestic partner, effective
Ianuary
1,2017.
The Council intends to reject the group insurance benefits in the agreement. The
Council intends to approve the group insurance provisions as they were included in
the Executive's Recommended FY16 operating budget, including a Medicare Part
D Employer Group Waiver Prescription Drug Plan for Medicare-eligible retirees.
To the extent that this approval is inconsistent with any provision ofthe collective
bargaining agreement, that provision is disapproved.
2.
3.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 3
Resolution No.: 18-461
The Council intends to approve
all
other provisions ofthe Agreement subject to Council review.
This is a correct copy of Council action.
,
.:
i
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Resolution No.: 18-475
~~~~~--------
Introduced:
May 16. 2016
Adopted:
May 16, 2016
COUNTY COUNCIL
.FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
SUBJECT: Amendment to Resolution No. 18-461 concerning the Collective Bargaining
Agreement with Municipal
&
County Government Employees Organization
Background
1.
Section 51 I of the County Charter authorizes the County Council to provide by law for
collective bargaining, with arbitration or other impasse resolution procedures, with
authorized representatives of County Government employees.
Chapter 33, Article VII of the County Code implements Section 511 of the Charter and
provides for collective bargaining by the County Executive with the certified
representatives ofCounty employees and for review ofthe resulting contract by the County
Counci1.
On April 1,2016, the County Executive submitted to the Council a collective bargaining
agreements between the County government and Municipal and County Government
Employees Organization effective July 1,2016 through June 30, 2017.
The Executive has submitted to the Council the tenns and conditions of the Agreements
that require or may require an appropriation of funds or changes in any County law or
regulation.
The joint Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee and Education Committee
considered the Agreements and made recommendations on April 21, 2016.
The County Council has considered these terms and conditions and is required by law to
indicate· on or before May 1 its intention regarding the appropriation of funds or any
legislation or regulations required to implement the agreements.
The County Council adopted Resolution No. 18-461 on April 26, 2016 indicating its intent
to reject the:
(a)
3.5% service increment for each bargaining unit member whose service increment
was deferred during FYIl, FYI2, or FY13. and who is otherwise eligible, effective
the first pay period after May 1,2017; and
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2
Resolution No.: 18-475
(b)
(c)
8.
group insurance provisions in the Agreement.
domestic partner benefits for opposite sex couples.
The Executive and MCGEO renegotiated the Agreement and the Executive submitted the
revised Agreement to the Council for consideration on May 9, 2016. The revised
Agreement changes the effective date of the rejected second service increment to the first
pay period after June 24, 2017.
Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following
resolution:
The County Council intends to approve each ofthe provisions of the Agreement subject to
Council review for FY17 except:
1.
The 3.5% service increment for each bargaining unit member whose service
increment was deferred during FYII, FY12, or FY13, and who is otherwise
eligible, effective the first pay period after June 24, 2017.
Domestic partner benefits for an opposite sex domestic partner, effective January
1,2017.
The Council intends to reject the group insurance benefits in the agreement. The
Council intends to approve the group insurance provisions as they were included in
the Executive's Recommended FYI6 operating budget, including a Medicare Part
D Employer Group Waiver Prescription Drug Plan for Medicare-eligible retirees.
To the extent that this approval is inconsistent with any provision of the collective
bargaining agreement, that provision is disapproved.
2.
3.
This is a correct copy of Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Attachment to Resolution No.: 18-475
AMENDMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
AND THE
MUNIaPAL ... COUNTY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION. UFCW, LOCAL 1994
The Montgomery County Government {Employer) and the
United
Food and Commercial Workers, local
1994,
Municipal" County Government Employees OrpnizatiQn {UnlonL conducted negotiations
pursuant to
Section
33--108
of
the Momsomery County Code for the term
July
1, 2016
through June 30,.
2017.
As
a
result
of the negotiations, the Employer and Union entered Into
8
Memorandum of
Agreement between the Montsomery County Government and the Municipal" CoLmty Government
Employees Organization,
UFCW, 1.oca11994
(the Agreement).
The
Agreement is attached hereto and
InCorporated herein. PJ,lrsuant to Section 33-108 of the Montgomery County Code, the County Council,
by
resolution adopted AprH
26,
2016, IndICated Its intent not to appropriate funds for certain portions of
the
Agreement. Thereafter. the Employer and Union met and agreed
to
the follOWing amendment to
the
Agreement. This amendment replaces the language fOLmd in Article 6.9, Service Increments, of the
Agreement
with
the language stated below. All other parts of the Agreement remain the same.
Please use the following
key
when reading
this
agreement
Underlining
(Single boldface brackets]
Added
to
existlng agreement.
Deletedfrom existing agreement.
Existing language unchanged
by
parties.
.. .. *
The parties agree to amend the contract as follows:
..
..
*
ARTla.E 6
SERVICE INCREMENTS
.
.
6.9 Each unit member whose service Increment
was
postponed during
MOlt,
W12, andloe
FY2013. and
whQ
is otherwise 'Dllble
3$
identified In this article. shall receive asalary adlustment
of 35 percent effective the
pay
period
beginningJLme
25. 2017.
This salary adjustment of
3,5
percent cancels one of the
three
previously
postponed service Increments,
The
remaining
two
[All] prevfously postponed service inaements
win
not be paid in [FY 2016] FY 2017•
..
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,
the
parties
hereto have caused their
names
to be subscribed
by their
dulvauthorlled
officers
and representatives
thlS!i:tIJ.
day
of
May 2016.
United Food and Commercial Workers,
local 1994, Munidpal & County
Government
Employees Organization
Montgomery
County
Government
Montgomery
County, Maryland
Approved for form and legality
iQ~
County Attorney
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
. May 2,2016
TO:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Depaltment of
Finallci~
Repeal
Jennifer
A.
Hughes,
Director,
Office
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OfManagel.~21 an~ B~
U
L
PElS
for
Bill 16-16,
Personnel-
Benefits for Domestic
Partner
ofEmployee
Plea~
find attached the fiscal and
economic
impact
statements
for
the above­
referenced legislation.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief
Administrative
Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices ofthe
County
Executive
Joy Nunlli, Special
Assistant
to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield,
Director, Public
Information
Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of
Finllnce
Shawn Y. Stokes, Director,
Office of Human Recourses
David Phltt, Department
of
Finance
Corey Orlosky, Office of Management
and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Offic-e of Mallagement nnd
Budget
21
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impaet Statement
Council Bill 16-16, Personnel- Benefits for Domestic Partner
fir
Employee - Repeal
l.Legislative Summary.
This bill would repeal the lawiequiring
the
Cqqntyto prOvide domestic partner benefits
for certain employees.
.
2. An estimate of changes in County re,'cnues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues
or
expenditure.
are
assumed in the recommended
or
approved budget.
Includes Bource oflnformatiol1, assumptions, and methodologies used.
This bill would provide an estimated cost avoidance of$28,695 for the County in the
fonn ofa reduction in the number of dependents covered under the County's health
insurance plans and potentially filing health insurance claims.
The
cost estimate is based
on plan experience for an estimated 15 new domestic partnerships filed annually, at an
average incremental cost of $1,913. There is no fiscal impact related to
the
continuation
of coverage for an employee or retiree currently receiving domestic partner benefits or
who has applied
tor
domestic
partn~r
benefits befure April 19,2016.
In
addition to the change to health benefit options, this bill would remove the ability for
County employees in a domestic partnership to name their domestic partner as a joint
annuitant on their defined benefit pension. This action would have no impact on
the
cost
of
the annuity, as the calculated cost
of
the annuity is actuariaUy equivalent with or
without a joint annuitant.
This
bill woUld have no impact on Couniy revenues.
3.
Revenue
and
expenditure
esdmat~ covcrin'Jf~t
least
the next
6
fIScal
years.
This bill would have an estimated cost avoidance of$215,882 over the next 6 fiscal
years. Expenditure estimates
ite
calculated using a projected 9% increase in health
claims costs each year.
4.
An
actuarial
analysis through the entire amortization
period for
each
biD
that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance
costs.
Group
insurance claims costs
are
determinedactuarially.
TIle
fiscal
impact of this bill
was
e~timated
based on the assumptions specified in
#2
above.
5. Later actions that
may affect
future revenue and expenditures
if
the bill authorizes
future
spending.
Not applicable.
6.
An
estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bilI.
Staff time needed to implement the bill would be
minimal~
and would result in a slight
time savings through no longer nee.ding to review domestic partnership requests.
7. An explanation
of
how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
Not applicable.
.
"
","'.'
~'~ ~
!
.
8. An estimate of costs when an
~dditional
appropriation is needed.
2.2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Not applicable.
9. A description of any variable that cotdd affect revenue and cost estimates.
The number of covered employees and dependents and the cost of claims could affect the
cost
estimates.
10.
Ranges
of revenue or expenditures that
are
uncertainO"r
difficult
to
project.
Not applicable,
11•
.If
a bill is
likely
to have
lit)
fiscal
im{Uitt;
why
that is the
case.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or
com,me~~,.
>1·
Not
applicable.
•••
':-
..
13.
The followiug contributed to
and
concurred with
this analysis:
Corey Orlosky,
Office
of Management and
Budget
Lori O'Brien,
Office
ofHUl11iin
Resources
.
Belinda Fulco, Office of Human Resources
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 16-16, Penonne1- Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee - Repeal
Background:
'Illis
legislation would repeal
the
law requiring the County to provide domestic
partner
benefits to eligible County Employees. Benefits for Employee's Domestic Partner signed
into law on December 3, 1999. extended health and insurance benefits to
a
same-sex
domestic partner of
a
County employee. Subsequent legislation extended opposite sex
domestic partner benefits to members ofthe police and fire and rescue, bargaining units.
The latter legislation
was
enacted when same-sex
marriage
was prohibited in
!vfaryland.
On January
1,2013.
the state recognized same-sex marriage. On April
12,
2016
the
County Executive introduced legislation
(Bill 13-16)
that wm,dd provide opposite sex
domestic partner benefits
to
employees represented by MCGEO and unrepresented
County employees.
Council member George
Leventhal~
lead sponsor for
Bill 16-16,
proposes to repeal
domestic partner benefits to County employees.
The
previous legislation was appropriate
at
a time when marriage was. illegal for gays and lesbians. However, since the
state
now
recognizes same-sex marriage. such legislation is.no lon&rer m..Cessary and the County's
'
ta'(payers should not continue
to
have
to pay for providing
this benefit.
1. The
sources of information,
assumptions, and
methodologies used.
There
are
no sources ofinformation or methodologies
used
in the preparation ofihe
economic impact statement. According to data providtxlin
the fiscal
impact
statement, Bill
16~
16
would provide an estimated first-year cost avoidance of
$28,695
for
the
County,
since
those costs
will
be bome by the domestic partnerships and,
as
such,
would
impact the incomes
of
those
partnerships.
2. A
description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
There no variables that could affect the economic impact estimates.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending,
savings,
investment,
incomes,
and property values in the County.
As
the County would avoid
the cost
of providing
health
insurance to domestic
partners, there would be an economic effect on the domestic partnerships. However,
because
the
moderate amount ofestimated cost avoidance,
SHl 16-16
would
have
no
significant economic effect on employment, spending,
savings,
investment, incomes,
and property
values
in
the
County.
4.
If
a
BiD
is
likely
to have no economic impact,
why
is that the
caseY
Bill 16-16 would have no economic impact. Please see paragraph #3.
Page 1 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic
lmpaet Statement
Bill
16-16~
Personnel-
Benefits for
Domestic
Partner
of
Employee
-
Repeal
5. The follolling contributed to or concurred with this
analysis:
David Platt,
Mary
Cascjotti~
and Rob Hagedoorn, Finance; Corey Orlosky, OMB.
Page 2 of2