This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Statement of Objections

Mayor Rocky Anderson

February 21, 2006

Pursuant to Utah Code Section 10-3-1214, I hereby provide this statement of objections in support of my veto ("disapproval") of the Ordinance Enacting Section 2.52.100 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to Benefits of Employee Dependents (Ordinance No. 4 of 2006), as well as of the related Ordinances Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of 2006, which pertain to bereavement and dependent leave related to an "adult designee" of an employee.

These ordinances are blatantly discriminatory, undermine parity between employees with spouses and those with spousal-like relations, endanger a needed clarification of Amendment 3 and the Defense of Marriage Act, and will substantially increase costs for taxpayers, premiums for employees, and healthcare claims. In addition, Salt Lake City Corporation employees overwhelmingly oppose the adoption of these ordinances.

I signed an Executive Order on September 21, 2005 that extended benefits presently enjoyed by spouses of City employees to domestic partners of City employees. The aim of this Executive Order was to provide parity between employees with spouses and employees that have spousal-like relationships. The Executive Order guarantees, to the greatest extent possible, equality among employees regardless of sexual orientation or marital status. It extends an existing benefit to additional employees based on considerations of fairness, and in doing so follows the example of over 8,000 public and private sector employers nationwide.

In contrast, the Council's plan creates a new type of benefit that is unprecedented among public or private sector employers. There can be no justification for treating employees' roommates or housemates the same as employees' spouses or domestic partners, except to avoid the issue of marital status equality, especially as it concerns gay and lesbian employees. The so-called "adult designee" benefit does not guarantee parity between spousal and spousal-like relationships. In fact, it provides for unequal treatment of married employees and those who are unmarried. Under the Council's plan, married employees cannot add an "adult designee" to the City's insurance plan. In essence, the Council's plan creates a completely new benefit scheme, and then allows only a small part of the City's workforce to enjoy the benefits. The claim that equality is achieved through the Council's plan is completely unsupportable. As a local union leader wrote to the Council, the Council's exclusion of married employees "shows a major gap in equity-especially in a proposal that is allegedly being created on the basis of creating equity."

The timing of the Council's plan seems calculated to undermine equality in the manner in which City employees are compensated. In September, the Alliance Defense Fund sued Salt Lake City, claiming that my Executive Order violated the Defense of Marriage Act and "Amendment 3" to Utah's Constitution. After costly and time-consuming litigation, the City is poised to achieve historic legal recognition for the equality of employees regardless of marital status and sexual orientation. The Council, in promulgating a plan that would render this case moot, impedes this tremendous opportunity for a formal, legal recognition of the means to provide greater equality in the treatment of employees.

The timing of the Council's proposed "adult designee" plan prevents needed clarification of the scope of Amendment 3 and the Defense of Marriage Act, which would otherwise be forthcoming in the lawsuit involving my Executive Order. By the timing of its action, the Council wastes valuable taxpayer dollars and the efforts of hard-working City employees expended in this litigation, and undermines the considerable efforts already expended to obtain a court ruling on the crucial issues involving equality of benefits.

The Council's plan would cost City employees and/or taxpayers four times more in the increase in premiums than the costs resulting from the Executive Order. It would cost the City as much as $447,000 in claims next fiscal year alone, and opens the door to heightened opportunities for fraud and abuse.

Finally, City employees overwhelmingly oppose the Council's plan.

Sixty-eight percent of employees who participated in a survey about the Council's proposal disapproved of it. In a survey of retirees under age 65 who are currently covered by the City's insurer, every respondent opposed the Council's plan. The Council's plan has been pursued in wholesale disregard of the stated desires of Salt Lake City Corporation's current and retired employees.

Dated this 21st day of February, 2006.

Sincerely,

Ross C. Anderson Mayor