Agenda Item 4
May 3,2016
Public Hearing
MEMORANDUM
Apri129,2016
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
n
ffAcj
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing:
Bill 13-16, Personnel - Benefits for Domestic Partner of
Employee - Amendments
Bill 13-16, Personnel
Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee - Amendments,
sponsored by Lead Sponsor Council President at the request of the County Executive, was
introduced on April 12, 2016. A Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
worksession is tentatively scheduled for May 4, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
Background
The recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement between the County and the
Municipal and County Government Employees Organization, Local 1994 (MCGEO) provides that
all health and insurance benefits
be
extended to opposite-sex domestic partners of employees
covered under the agreement. The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #35 (FOP) and the International
Association of Firefighters, Local 1664 (IAFF) have similar provisions in their contracts. This
statutory change in eligibility for health and insurance benefits would be effective January 1, 2017,
so as to coincide with the normal health plan enrollment period that is done in the fall and takes
effect January 1 of each year. Bill 13-16 would extend these benefits to all County employees
who are eligible for health and insurance benefits.
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 of Bill 28-99 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 ofan 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.
I
In short, Bill
28-99 was a civil rights law that was enacted outside ofthe collective bargaining process.
I
The County first prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1984.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill 25-0 1, Personnel- Retirement - Amendments, extended opposite sex domestic partner
benefits to members of the police bargaining unit on November 1, 2001. Finally, 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 were enacted at a
time when same-sex marriage was prohibited in Maryland. Maryland began
to
recognize same­
sex marriage on January 1, 2013.
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. The Montgomery County Board of Education and Howard County
each eliminated all domestic partner benefits for its employees after Maryland began to recognize
same-sex marriage.
2
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 ofthe 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 ©1O-15. Bill· 13-16 would resolve this
inequity by expanding these benefits to everyone.
Fiscal
Impact
Based upon the County's experience with police and fire employees, OMB estimated that
the extension of these benefits to all employees would cost $344,276 in FY17
3
and $688,552 in
FY18 and beyond. See the Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement at ©6. Applying OMB's
estimated 9% annual increase in health insurance costs resulted in an estimated cost of$4.8 million
over the next 6 years.
The District of Columbia continues to provide domestic partner benefits to its employees, and Prince George's
County never provided these benefits to its employees.
3
The FY17 cost is half the annual cost because the Bill would take effect on
January
1, 2017.
2
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council Resolution
No.
18-461
On April 26, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution No. 18-461 indicating its intent to
approve or reject provisions of the MCGEO collective bargaining contract 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
©
16-18.
This packet contains:
Bill 13-16
Circle
#
1
4
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Stateline, September 11, 2015
Resolution No. 18-461
F:\LAW\BILLS\1613 Personnel-Benefits For Domestic Partners\PH Memo.Docx
5
6
10
16
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
--l.1:::..3-..!.16.l:::..-_ _ _ __:__-:--­
Concerning: Personnel- Benefits for
Domestic Partner of Employee ­
Amendments
Revised: April
6. 2016
Draft No. 1
April
12. 2016
Introduced:
Expires:
October
12.2017
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
...!.N..!.::o~n'_=_e
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President at the request of the County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
provide benefits to an opposite sex domestic partner of certain employees; 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 hy original hill.
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. 13-16
1
2
Sec.
1.
Section 33-22 is amended as follows:
33-22. Benefits for Domestic Partner of Employee.
(a)
3
4
Findings andpurpose.
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 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,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(b)
General rule.
Any benefit the County provides for the spouse (including
"widow" or other equivalent term) 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:
(I)
satisfy all of the following requirements:
25
c.J
F:\LAW\BILLS\1613 Personnel-Benefits For Domestic Partners\BiII
l.Docx
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 13-16
26
27
28
(A)
[be the same sex, unless the employee is a member of the
police bargaining unit or the fire and rescue services bargaining
unit;
(B)]
share a close personal relationship and be responsible for
29
30
31
each other's welfare;
[(C)]
@
months;
[(D)]
!Q
[(E)] (D)
be at least 18 years old;
have voluntarily consented to the relationship,
have shared the same legal residence for at least 12
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
without fraud or duress;
[(F)]
an
not
be
married to, or in a domestic partnership with,
any other person;
[(G)]
(fl
not be related by blood or affinity in a way that would
39
40
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)]
41
42
43
44
45
.em
[(I)]
.em
be legally competent to contract; and
share sufficient financial and legal obligations to
satisfy subsection (d)(2); or
46
47
*
Sec. 2. Effective Date.
*
*
48
This Act takes effect on January 1,2017.
49
1.Docx
c.J
F:\LAW\BILLS\l613 Personnel-Benefits For Domestic Partners\Bill
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 13-16
Bill
13-16,
Personnel- Benefits for Domestic Partner ofEmployee Amendments
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
The legislation would extend health and insurance benefits to an
opposite sex domestic partner of an employee.
The recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement between
the County and the Municipal and County Government Employees
Organization, Local 1994 (MCGEO) provides that all health and
insurance benefits be extended to opposite-sex domestic partners
of employees covered under the agreement. The Fraternal Order of
Police Lodge #35 (FOP) and the International Association of
Firefighters, Local 1664 (IAFF) have similar provisions in their
contracts. This statutory change in eligibility for health and
insurance benefits would be effective January 1, 2017, so as to
coincide with the normal health plan enrollment period that is done
in the fall and takes effect January 1 of each year. The Bill would
extend these benefits to all County employees who are eligible for
health and insurance benefits.
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
This amendment to Sec. 33-22(c) of the County Code both
implements the provision of the MCGEO contract and passes
through this benefit to unrepresented employees.
COORDINATION:
Office ofHwnan Resources and Finance
FISCAL IMPACT:
Office of Management and Budget
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Office of Management and Budget
N/A
N/A
Stuart Weisberg, Office ofHwnan Resources (x.75154)
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
NI
A
PENALTIES:
N/A
F:\LAW\BILLS\1613 Personnel-Benefits For Domestic Partners\Legislative Request Report -Domestic Partners.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF TIlE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
lsiah
Leggett
County Executive
ltOCKYlLLE., MAll.YLANb 20850
MEMORANDUM
. April 1, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Nancy Boreen,. President
Montgomery County Council
lsiah
Leggett,
County
~
EXecutiV~"
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Agreement between the County and MCGEO
I
have
attached for
the
Council's review the agreement resulting from
the
recent
negotiations between the Montgomery County Government and
the
Municipal
&
County
Government Employees Organization/United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1994
(MCGEO). The agreement is the product of a settlement reached
by
the parties during
mediation. The agreement reflects the changes that will
be
made
to
the existing Collective
Bargaining Agreement
to
be
effective July 1,2016 through June 30, 2017.
I have also attached a summary ofthe agreed upon items as well as a copy ofthe
fiscal impact statement referenced in the Workforce/Compensation chapter of my budget to
assist in Council's review of the document. The items
win
take effect for the first time in
FY2017 and have a fiscal impact
in
FY2017.
IL: geb
Attachments
cc:
Shawn
Stokes, Director. Office of
Human
Resources
Jennifer Hughes. Director, Office ofManagement and Budget
Marc Hansen,. County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROC~LE. ~YLAND
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Timothy L. Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer
~
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Director,
Office
of Management and
Bud~
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department
ofFinan~
County Executive
Bill
XX:
- Amendments
W
16~
Perso.nnel- Benefits
for
Domestic Partners ofEmployees
Please find attached the fiscal and economic
nnpact
statement for the above:-referenced
legislation.
JAH:mc
cc: Bonnie
Kirk1and,
Assistant
Cruef
Administrative
Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices ofthe
County
Executive
Joy Nunni, Special Assistant
to
the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public lnfonnation Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director; Department of Finance
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Director. Office ofManagement and Budget
Shawn
Stokes, Director, Office
of
Human Resources
'
David Platt,
Department of
Finance
Stuart Weisberg, Office of
Human
Resources
Lori
O'Brien, Offroe
of
Human Resources
Alex Espinosa,
Office
of
Management and
Budget
Naeem Mia, Office ofManagement and Budget
Corey
Orlosky.
Office
of
Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang. Office ofManagement
and
Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.'
Fiscal Impact
Statement
. BilI
XX·!, - Pe"QJlnel-
B~pefits
for.
D.o~~sti~partne
...s of Employee$
~AlIl,endlll.ents
1. Bill Summary
The proposed bill e::dends group insurance benefits to opposite sex domestic partners of
employees of the Mtmicipal and County Government Employees Organization,
Local
1994 (MCGEO) pursuant to the recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement
effective July 1
t
2016 through June 30, 2017
~
The bill also extends this coverage
to
unrepresented employees.
2. An estimate
of
changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless
of
whether
the revenues or. expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget.
Includes souree
of
information, assumptions, and methodologies used...
The bill is estimated to have an impact on County Health Insurance Fund costs of
$344,276
in
FYI7, and is included in the FYI7 recommended budget The cost estimate
is based on a January 1. 2017 implementation date and plan
exp~ence
of coverage for
police and frre rescue bargaining unit members. Based art that experience, the cost
estimate assumes 2.6% of emp.loyees would benefit from this change at an average
incremental cost of$1 ,913.·
~~
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal
yean.
Based on the assumptions exphrlned above, this bill is estimated to have an impact of
$344,276
in
FYI7, and $688,552 annuaUy
in
the following years. The estimated annual
cost is approximately 0.3 'percent ofthe $245.9 million FYI? recommended budget for
the Health Insurance Fund. Health insurance claims costs are estimated to .increase 9%
annually. Applying the estimated 90A increase would result in a tota16-year estimated
cost of $4.8 million.
4. An
actuarial
analysis through the entire amortization period for each regulation
that would
affect
retiree pension or group insurance
costs.
Group insurance claims costs are determined actuarially. The cost estimate for this
negotiated change was based on the assumptions specified
in
#2 above.
5.
Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures
if
the biD authorizes
future spending.
.
Not applicable.
I
6. An estimate of the
stafftime'l\~ded
to
implemenMhe
bill.
_ •.. 1.-
.
_
.'
No additional
stafftimeis
needed to'implementtilis bill.
,
'!
7.
An
expJanation of how the addition
of
new
staff
reSponsibilities would affect other
duties.
.
.d.
,
Not applicable.
8.'
An
estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
See response to question 2, above.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9. A
description of any variable that couldaffed
revenue
and cost
estimates.
The number of covered employees/dependents and the cost ofclaims could affect
the
cost
estimates.
10.
Ranges of
revenue
or
expenditures
that
are uncertain or diffi.cult
to
project.
Not applicable.
11.
If
a bill is
Ukely
to
have
no fiscal impact,
why
that is the ease.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
13.
The
following contributed to and concurred with this analysis (enter name and
dept.)
Stuart Weisberg, Office of Human
Resources
Lori
O'Brien.
Office
ofHuman
Resources
Corey Orlosky, Office of Management
and
Budget
JenDifer~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill
#1#-16,
Personnel- Benefits for Domestic Partners for Employees - Amendments
Background:
This legislation would provide
certain
benefits
to
an opposite sex domestic partner for
certain employees. The negotiated collective bargaining agreement between the County
and the Municipal and County Government Employees
Organization~
Local 1994
(MCGEO) provides that all health and insurance benefits shall
be
extended to opposite
sex partners of employees covered under the agreement. Bill
##~
16 amends Section 33­
22(c) of the County Code that 1) implements the provisions ofthe MCGEO contract, and
2) passes through this benefit to unrepresented employees.
1. TIle sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The source ofinfonnation is the County Executive's FYl7 Recommended Budget
Operating Budget. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) estimates the
budget impact of $344.276 in FY17 and $688,552 annually thereafter. Based on the
date
ofimplementation and the plan experience for other bargaining units, OMB
assumes 2.6 percent ofemployees would benefit at an average incremental cost of
$1,913. 'There are no other assumptions or methodologies used
in
the preparation of
the
economic impact statement.
2. A description of any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
The variable
that
could affect the economic impact estimates
is
the number of
covered employees who would benefit from. this amendmenL
3. TbeBill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and property values in the County.
Based on the budget estimates prepared by OMB, Bill
##~
16 effects on employmen'4
spending, savings, investment, incomes,
and.
property values
in
the County would not
be
significant.
4.
If
a Bill is
likely
to have no economic impact, why
is
that the case?
Bill ##-16 would have no significant economic impact.
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis: David Platt and
Rob
Hagedoom, Department ofFinance; Corey Orlosky OMB; Lori O'Brien, Office of
Human Resources.
Page 10ft
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4/7/2016
Atter :::;ame-:::;ex Marriage
KUling,
;::, lCllt'lS rl.t:l(..V!
.".v",.
uu ••
,,,,;:,u,,, . . '" u
'co,
....co, "'" " ...
THE
I)EW
CHARITAB LE
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 Beilsch
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-states-reconsider-domestic-partner-bene...1/7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
41712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Kuling,
~tates
KeconSl(ler uomesnc I"armer oeneills
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage has some state and
local governments reconsidering their domestic partner bene'fits.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriqge 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 ofAlaska 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.
htlp:Jlwww.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogststateline/2015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-states-reconsider-domestic-partner-bene...
217
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4/7/2016
Attar lSame-lSax Marriage KUling,
~tates
KeconSloer
uomesLU; I""ClI II 11;1'
Ol;l"I;In...
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
htlp:llwww.pawtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysislblogs/stateline12015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-statss-reconsider-domeslic-partner-bene... 3/7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
41712016
After Same-Sex Marrrage KUling, ::states KeconSloer uomesuc I"'armer
oellell~
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 managerforthe 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. Ofthe 60 people on the plan before same-
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysislblogs/statelinel2015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-states-reconsider-domestic-partner-bene...
4/7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
41712016
After same-sex Marnage KUling, ;:)tates KeCOnl:Hoer uomesuc
r-anntlr
0"''''''"\::0
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 benefits, 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.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/eniresearch-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-states-reconsider-domestic-partner-bene...
517
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4f712016
After Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, States Keconslder uomestlc I-'artner t;jenems
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 bene'fits 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)
Editors Picks From Around the Web
(OLDER
Editor's Picks From Around the Web
PLACES
United States
TAGS
Business of Government, Justice, Labor, Social Issues
@)
htlp:llwww,pewtrusts,org/en/research-and-analysislblogs/stateline/2015/09/11/after-same-sex-marriage-ruling-states-reconsider-domestic-partner-bene".
617
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
,
~
I
.
Resolution No.:
18-461
--~~~~------
Introduced:
April 19. 2016
Adopted:
Apri126,20i6
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
CoUnty Council
to
provide by law for
collective' bargaining. with arbitration or other impasse resolution procedures. with
authorized representatives of County GoveIIIIilent employees.
Chapter
33,
Article
vn
of the County Code implements Section 511 of the Charter and
pIovi~
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
.
.
2.
3.
agreements between the County government !iD-d Municipal
and.
County Government
Employees Organization effective July
1, 2016
through June
30, 2017.
A copy of the
Agreement
is
attached
to
this
Resolution.
4.
The
Executive
has
subnlitted
to
the
Council the
tel'lris
and conditions of the Agreements
that require or may require an appropriation of funds or
changes
in
any County law or
regulation.
5.
6..
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 requirevl
to
implement the agreements.
@.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2
Resolution
No.: 18-461
Action
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland apprQves 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
~e
adjustmentpayable on the
first
pay period after January
I,
2017.
3.5%
service increments for all eligible bargaining unit members on their
anniversary
date.
4.
3%
longevity increment for eligible
bargainin~
unit members.
5.
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
first
pay period after July
1,
2016.
6.
Tuition Assistance
up
to
$150.000.
25
individual and
7
job class classification studies.
7. .
8.
9..
Inclusion
~f
a Pharmacy Benefit 1v.fanagement Programs.
Additional
$0.25
per
hour
for seasonal employee. .
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
FYll, FY12,
or
FY13, and who
is
otherwise eligible. effective
the
first
pay period
after
May
1, 2017.
.
2.
3.
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
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 of the collective
bargaining agreement, that provision is disapproved.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.. __ .I
.
_.....,
Page 3
Resolution No.: 18-461
The Council
intends
to
approve all other provisions of the Agreement subject
to
Council
review.
This is a correct
copy
of Council action.
,
.i
Linda
M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
·
.