So I reluctantly bring this up because it sounds like sour grapes but feel it needs to be brought up publicly.

Bill Simpson has been quietly campaigning some council members to support a resolution allowing him to purchase health insurance from one of the city plans. Oddly enough I wasn't approached (yes that's sarcasm). It seems he cannot afford to keep his campaign promise to retire because he cannot afford insurance on the open market so he has turned to the city.

I am making an assumption he did or at least should have looked into this before making such a promise. The city attorney researched and found this is legal.

So my question is do you think this is ethical? He did not tell the voters he intended to do this nor anyone else that I can find. Obviously I'm a little peeved by this but perhaps my view is jaded. Thoughts?

My reply regarding Bill Simpson would be better off in the Flame Pit should I even feel like giving that much effort to that cretin.

If it's legal, then the option should be open to any councilmember who wants it as well.

Personally, I don't see a problem with it as long as the city is not subsidizing the premiums. Unless I'm missing something.

It won't be open to councilmembers. The city would not pay for it to my knowledge.

At issue to me is do you find it ethical to promise something you know you can't follow through on unless you can get the rules changed after you get into office? More to the point shouldn't this have been brought up when the promise was first made so citizens could make their decisions with full knowledge? Something some don't realize is pay for an elected official cannot be raised or lowered for the current term of office. The AWC (Association of Washington Cities) believes this does not fall under that particular law though it is a benefit. Essentially what is happening is a benefit is being added for a curent office holder.

A key thing to remember the whole crux of the campaign was "I will have time to be the mayor because I'm going to retire". It should be noted the council members who have mentioned this have been lukewarm to the idea.

Why? Maybe a councilmember would retire if they could buy the City's insurance. I hope we'll hear the rationale for it being open for the Mayor but not Councilmembers.



This makes sense. However, I have no objection to Cities opening up the elected officials to similar benefits as employees even to the point of paying a portion if it is, A. legal, B. available to all elected officials in the city, C. if the same amounts are paid by all elected officials and no less than other city employees pay.

County Commissioners get health care. PUD Commissioners get health care. I assume Port Commissioners do too. The Auditor, Clerk, Sheriff, etc. get health care.
But, it should be a set policy adopted by the Council.

Rationale is they don't make enough to cover cost (would be deducted from check). I think it important to point out I'm not against the benefit as an idea. What I'm referring to is it kicking in immediately as opposed to after the following election (like voted in pay increases). This to me seems a lie by ommission if you planned to do this but failed to bring it up until you're in office.

The issue is the ability to access the city health care plan... not the cost or salary. I don't know what the premium is, but if the mayor has the opportunity to access it, councilmembers should have it, too.

But, should the mayor get it now? I'm conflicted, in that I think it should be an option for all but it was never an issue in the race. If he is paying 100% and Councilmembers have the same option, I think it's ok.

They will bring up hours and part-time, but those are issues that can be addressed.

I think it shows a lack of planning which should give pause on whether certain skills are lacking but I don't know if I can go so far as to call it unethical.

How much is the premium anyway? How much does the mayor make? I'm guessing that the mayor's paycheck wouldn't cover the entire non-subsidized premium which leads me to believe the city is subsidizing it. If so, I think that's very wrong and does bring the issue into unethical territory.

And I don't see what being able to deduct it from the paycheck has to do with whether an elected official can get it or not. People can always write a check by a certain date.

From someone with no political background, the thing that sticks out to me is that if it's intentionally being done quietly, it's at the very least a grey area and they know it. That immediately makes it sleazy.

I agree with Stash. It should be open to all, not just some, and at the same rate across the board. Also, if that's what it takes for him to follow through on campaign promises, it should be noted publicly. There is a cost associated with everyone on the city's plan, even without the plan being subsidized. Even if the benefit isn't free, the ability to join under the city's plan is a new free benefit that comes with cost to the city. That should all be above board.

In an economy where many of the people voting also cannot afford private insurance, I can see this special treatment turning into a PR disaster for Simpson. Especially if the option is only open to him.

I just heard them discussing this on CoffeeTalk. But I was only half-listening so may have heard wrong but I think I heard Simpson say his premium is $650/month. I can't help but question that as that is quite low for the type of plan that the city carries and this makes me believe the city is subsidizing it. If that's the case, this is a big foul and I would be pissed if I lived in Aberdeen.

Duly noted that there is an administrative cost to this even if Simpson is paying the full premium.

The more I think about it, it does seem hedgey.

ETA (after hearing more radio discussion about this):

Simpson is only paying 1/3 of the premium so it is subsidized by the citizens of Aberdeen. It is not open to all councilmembers as 50% have to sign up for it or none can...what a freakin' weird rule is that?

And the caller had a heckuva time getting a straight answer from Simpson.

OK, now it's crossed the line to unethical, imho. Or, at the very least, duplicitous.