Budget Passes House and Senate; Health Insurance Victory Achieved with Increase Held at 5 Percentage Points
June 21, 2009
The House voted 110-46 Friday to approve a $27.4 billion fiscal 2010 budget that includes nearly a billion dollars in new taxes, $1.5 billion in one-time federal stimulus funds and about $2.4 billion in spending cuts. About 15 minutes later, the Senate approved the bill, 31-8.
Among the budget items affecting state employees, the health insurance premium split went from 85/15 to 80/20 for employees hired on or before June 30, 2003. Employees hired after June 30, 2003, will see their split change from 80/20 to 75/25.
"This victory is a result of the phone calls and emails our members made and sent out to budget conference committee members," said National President David Holway. "We were looking at a budget with a very real possibility of 70/30 for all employees; the increase was limited to 5 percentage points because of the hard work of members."
Although NAGE sees victory in the smaller-than-anticipated increase, the union will continue to fight to push back the split if the economy rebounds and state tax revenues improve.
"These are very tough times for the state and everyone is taking a hit," said Local R1-207 President Theresa McGoldrick. "We're pleased that the split didn't go up to 70/30, but that doesn't mean we're going to accept the smaller increases as permanent.
"We've gone from 80/20 back to 85/15 before, and we will fight to do so again when the state is on more stable economic ground," she said.
In other budget news, Registrar of Motor Vehicles Rachel Kaprielian did not get the language she was looking for regarding the use of AAA to perform license and registration renewals. The registrar has contended all along that her program to give away registry jobs to AAA didn't need legislative approval, although language to approve the program was included in the FY 2010 budget. The House rejected the program language; the Senate retained it; and the conference committee charged with reconciling the two versions struck it from the budget for good.
If Kaprielian continues the program, she's either breaking the law or contradicting her own position on the matter: Why would she try to get the program passed into law if it doesn't require legislative approval? And if it does require legislative approval and she didn't get it, is she breaking the law by proceeding the with the program? NAGE's contention is that she's violating the law.