Unions lobbying for EUTF changes

The major public worker unions are are placing a special emphasis on bills to be introduced in the 2010 legislative session aimed at “reforming or changing” the Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, according to a UH Professional Assembly newsletter.

UHPA reports:

The language will allow for new structures for providing benefit packages and improve the organization of the EUTF.

A benefits consultant is assisting in the process, with UHPA, HGEA, and UPW splitting the cost.

UHPA directors also passed a motion “to accept language enabling health insurance to be negotiated by the bargaining unit and the employer as part of the legislative proposal.”

The newsletter also described an earlier joint request to the EUTF board to cancel the recent open enrollment period and extend current health plans until the usual April-May open enrollment.

The unions also requested that in 2010 active public union members be given the option to choose a Kaiser plan, an HMA 90/10 plan, an HMA 80/20 plan, an HMSA 90/10 plan, an HMSA 80/20 plan and an HMSA HMO plan. There would be no change to the retirement benefits plan. [Note: The EUTF Trustees rejected the recommendations of the unions and only extended the open enrollment into December. Employee initiated changes in EUTF coverage will be effective February 1, 2010.]

While pushing its proposals in advance of EUTF’s November meeting, union representatives met on November 18 with benefits consultant Paul Tom and EUTF trustees.

It isn’t clear how many trustees were present at the meeting. However, the sunshine law may have been violated if more than two trustees took part. More than two members are only allowed to discuss board business at a regular public meeting, or as part of a committee assigned to investigate a specific matter. (See Section 92-2.5 HRS).

UHPA also reports that while EUTF has hired temporary workers and accepted additional staff from health plan administrators to get through the large volume of paperwork generated by the open enrollment, it’s regular staff are being forced to take furlough Fridays.

The most recent minutes posted on the EUTF web site are for its September 30 meeting. October board minutes are not yet available, despite the requirement spelled out in the Sunshine Law that minutes be available within 30 days of the meeting.

§92-9 Minutes. (a) The board shall keep written minutes of all meetings. Unless otherwise required by law, neither a full transcript nor a recording of the meeting is required, but the written minutes shall give a true reflection of the matters discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. The minutes shall include, but need not be limited to:

(1) The date, time and place of the meeting;

(2) The members of the board recorded as either present or absent;

(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided; and a record, by individual member, of any votes taken; and

(4) Any other information that any member of the board requests be included or reflected in the minutes.

(b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within thirty days after the meeting, except where such disclosure would be inconsistent with section 92-5; provided that minutes of executive meetings may be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting, but no longer.

It’s possible that the October minutes have been approved but are late in being posted to the EUTF web site.

And should I mention that the EUTF dependent verification instructions mailed to all public employees and retirees contained the wrong fax number, so that attempts to fax supporting documents failed?


Discover more from i L i n d

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Unions lobbying for EUTF changes

  1. ohiaforest3400

    So what if an agency doesn’t meet every thirty days to, among other things, approve minutes of the prior meeting? How would the agency comply with HRS 92-9(b)? Post “draft” minutes?

    Reply
    1. ohiaforest3400

      PS: Per OIP, there is no requirement in the Sunshine Law that boards or commissions approve their minutes; accordingly, minutes in a form suitable for submission to the board or commission for approval are “government rcords” that must be disclosed and may not be withheld simply because they have not yet been approved; if boards or commissiions wish to formally approve minutes but can not do so within 30 days of the meeting to which they relate, OIP “suggests” that the minutes be stamped/marked “DRAFT” prior to being made available. See Opinion letter No. 02-06, 8/23/02.

      Reply
  2. Larry

    Not to pick nits, but the regs don’t require posting on a website. In the past, with other organizations, I have called and asked and they were emailed or faxed to me. So the public record was indeed available even though it had not been posted on a website.

    Reply
  3. Nikki Heat

    well, merry Christmas from EUTF. Checked the mailbox this morning and got a form letter informing me I had submitted only partial verification for my dependent who is away at college. The letter doesn’t say what’s missing so I’m left to speculate: did they not accept the copy of my tax return (that listed both my spouse and my college student as dependents — i.e., they wanted a separate copy for the college student)? or perhaps they did not like the electronic proof of enrollment that I obtained from her college?
    My spouse says it’s typical of insurance companies — some kind of automatic rejection, and then expect the runaround from poor call-in employees who simply have a checklist to go through but very little independent authority to provide useful information.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to ohiaforest3400 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.