Re “Culver City, the Odd 1 Percent Community for Health Benefits”
I cannot fully agree with City Councilman Scott Malsin's contention when it comes to the city's funding of ex-Council members’ perk of lifetime healthcare.
The city's obligation (really the taxpayers’ obligation) is truly open-ended. No one knows how long an ex-Councilmember will live after leaving office. And that, fellow taxpayer, is one of the major sticking points being aired at this time.
An example:
A 50-year old family man is elected to the City Council. As expected, the city pays his family's annual healthcare worth, say, $20K. He is re-elected by voters to a second term, serving a total of eight years.
His healthcare compensation over his two terms would cost taxpayers $160K.
Upon being termed-out of office, he would become eligible to receive city-paid (taxpayer-paid) healthcare for the rest of his life. If he lives to the ripe old age of 80, then the total cost of his eight years of “community service” would more than quadruple — to a cost of $700K.
That’s almost $90K in annual compensation for each of his eight years “serving the community.” That's not even accounting for the increase of healthcare costs as one gets older.
The Culver City Unified School District treats its past governing Board membership quite differently.
Upon retiring from the Board, each ex-member has the option of purchasing, with his own out-of-pocket money, discounted healthcare coverage at the District's group rate. This is not a fiscally open-ended, life-time obligation for the taxpayers to fund. It seems a much more reasonable way of treating past members fairly.
This example might be a solution for us to consider for future City Council members.
This Council member entitlement now is being seen by the community as a too-costly perk.
Although it is not on the same grand scale ripoff as the city of Bell scandal, it still looks as if past City Council members have been knowingly “servicing their community” for years.
Mr. Laase may be contacted at GMLaase@aol.com
