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.

If the city is subsidizing his premium that does piss me off and I do live in Aberdeen.

The Mayor said it would be $200 or $250 for him and I thought he said that was 25%.

First he said, "This has always been available to the mayor."

When pressed he said, "The resolution has always been an option."

When pressed further, I think he agreed this has never come up before and a mayor could not just sign up for the medical plan, but any mayor in the past could seek a resolution just like he is doing now.

Very convoluted.

I don't care if the Council decides to allow the Mayor to opt in to the medical system. But, I think councilmembers should have the same option. And having a 50% threshold doesn't make sense. If one counilmember needs to buy medical insurance and the others don't because they have it provided through work or a spouse or they're on Medicare, why should that one councilmember be penalized.

And, finally, the hooey about how many hours are put in is just that: hooey. If the opportunity for the mayor and councilmembers to purchase medical insurance is there it will be regardless of the hours put in. There is no statuatory requirement for the hours I'd bet the Mayor doesn't punch a time clock. He can put in 30 hours a week and participate in the medical pool. If next year he starts putting in 10 hours a week, he can still participate. The hours are not an issue.

It was quite interesting listening to that this a.m. Several callers were upset about the situation. Simpson seemed to be squirming. One guy called three different times, he was pissed! (But of course since Doug didn't agree with him, Doug hung up on him--twice.)

The know-it-all woman that calls all the time said the craziest thing I have ever heard her say (and that is saying a lot)--'why shouldn't the mayor's healthcare be paid by the city? It's no different than Paul Fritts' healthcare being paid by the county.'

WTF?? Really???? I can think of a reason--Paul Fritts is not an ELECTED OFFICIAL.

Sheesh!

Crazy indeed. The trend on talk radio, and in newspaper comment sections, is to equate any public employee, elected or otherwise, to a parasite draining the nation's economic lifeblood.

Yeah, it's amazing how much Doug protects Simpson when he's in. This is not the first time he's done that and I really don't recall him doing it for anybody else.



Wishkah Judy. Yeah, if she likes you then it's OK. If not, it's not. Her opinion blows in the wind based on her emotions. Normally she's of the "elected officials shouldn't even get paid" crowd.

Fritts county benefits are part of his job and not different than other deputies. Big difference, Wishkah Judy.

If I were you, I'd call both of your councilmembers and the mayor.

When they quibble over other $5-10k expenditures in the city's budget and have cut items that cost in that range and then decide to put this item in the budget which is probably costing the city somewhere in-between those figures and it's not even in the budget!!!!...well, I think that's a problem. Just sayin'.

Now, funky. You don't think the Mayor presented a budget to council that didn't include this expenditure, do you? Surely the mayor and his finance department calculated the city's costs for the city's share for him and his spouse as well as the councilmembers who could opt in. Wouldn't it be somewhat irresponsible to knowingly present a budget with costs you expect to incur deliberately omitted? Those are harsh accusations, my dear. </snark>

No these figures were not in the budget of course (your sarcasm was recognized). More importantly since we are budgeting to use $212,000 our of our general fund reserve this means it will be an additional $12,000+ taken out of reserves that were not budgeted for.

As long as someone keeps me supplied with Auntie's hot buttered rum mix, I don't give a hoot.

According to the DW, he already has Hoder and Shortt's votes. Only 5 more to round up, and at least 3 of those he probably doesn't even have to ask--Mills, Schave, Paling. Looks like a done deal, short term bad press be damned, no thanks to ex-Councilman Fritts.

Actually Shortt is undecided and Hoder is a no. Hoder did not realize this would be subsidized by the city when she initially supported it.

A little public pressure can sometimes go a long ways.

If this thing snowballs, there may be enough pressure on otherwise easy yes votes to sway them from slipping this past.

So, how old is the Mayor? Is he eligible for Medicare?

70 so Yes

Yeah, I just read the article in tonight's paper. He is on Medicare but "not the full thing because I'm still working." I'm not sure what that means, but I suspect it applies to the $12+ grand he'll make as Mayor.

Hoder say's (at least last night when she was asked) “He’ll compensate the city back by putting in more hours,” Hoder said. “That would be fabulous for us. I can’t think of a better deal than to have a full-time mayor on what we pay him.”

So, some people pay MORE to get MORE of the mayor? Someone is going to have to explain how "more of the mayor" is a benefit. What do you really get with "more hours with the mayor?" But, I suspect that would take some real slight of hand and I'd not really ask anyone to go to those extremes.

The issue should be, "Should the option of participating in the City's medical plan be available to the Mayor and Council?"

Forget about benefit to the City. The next mayor could opt in and work 3 hours a week.

I don't think it's a Pandora's Box the Mayor has opened as I believe we need to figure out a way so everyone can have healthcare.

But, I didn't like Corporate Council's explanation that "council members may qualify for health insurance, but the city’s carrier will require that more than 50 percent of them join the plan — effectively seven out of the 12 council members."

It's my experience if you're willing to pay for it, they will "require" whatever you tell them you want to require. They ask for 50% or more so they can do some actuarials to determine risk. If threshold is 8% or 1 out 12, there is a rate. It might be higher, but there is a rate. Actually, make it 1 out of 13 and see what happens or 50% or more of all 13 of the elected officials. Then the cost to the City will be lower, if 7 decide to do it.

Ya know, this issue and the attempts of subterfuge on CoffeeTalk make me all the more curious about these supposed season tickets Simpson has bought for the D&R. I have a feeling there's some benefits not being reported to the PDC there.

If I lived in Aberdeen, I would REALLY be pissed mainly just due to the subsidizing and the impact on the budget. If I worked for the city, would be pretty upset if wages/benefits were negatively impacted due to budget issues yet the city can afford this extra expense.

If the mayor and councilmembers went onto the city's insurance, I really doubt it would change the actuarials that much as they would be added to the rest of the city employees not put in as a separate group. I'm not expert on this but I would bet on that.

I wonder about the 'season tickets' also.

I personally don't believe it is ethical or economical for the City to buy into this. His "status quo" attitude should be put to use in his own life. He should either be satisfied with Medicare, or buy his own supplemental insurance policy like the rest of us have to do. There are options that are affordable. The City insurance sounds like it would cost the taxpayers about $700 per month.....he makes it sound as he is giving them quite the bargain for paying a "Portion" of it himself. He may give full time to the City as Mayor but that doesn't mean we should pay for more than he is worth. I think Doug McDowell should not give comments about this issue since his wife is a subordinate of Mr. Simpson.

I notified my two council members that I am against this. I think that Mr. Simpson introducing the Resolution is a way to circumvent the rules and make it appear to be legal. Sure it may be legal for him to be eligible for insurance but it is another thing all together to have the city pay for it. I think if he wants to latch on to the City insurance, fine, but he should pay 100% of the premium himself. His wife should be added at his own expense as well.

When I first heard him mention the season tickets, I figured he got them at less than market value.......

Where is this flame pit? Perhaps I should go there to add my two cents worth.

Mr. Simpson plans for the City to subsidize the premiums....to the extent of about $700 per month.....that just isn't right. Let him sign up and pay the premiums himself. 100% of them.

it's all a moot point made over a question

http://kbkw.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3577

Well, there you go.

Dave you're smarter than that. It wasn't a question. He already approached council members in the hopes of it passing and the ONLY reason he is pulling back on this idea is because of the backlash. No if ands or buts. His excuse of he wasn't aware of the costs is crap. This has been his M.O. during my entire council experience. Ethics are not necessarily his strong point and have not been during my tenure. Had I and a few others not brought this up it would have went to the council. On this I would bet a months pay. Now whether it would have passed is something we will not know.

It's over.
Your work here is done.
Let it go.

Still a citizen. Still point out things that I believe are wrong. Nothing to let go. This and Facebook are the easiest places to get info out there. Its called civic duty. You're not required to read it if it bothers you. Have a good day.

A bit harsh for commentary a mere one hour after the press release, don'cha think? Did you have a horse in the race, perchance? After all, MWMI was correct in pointing out that the slant Dave put on his post was a clear distortion of reality in favor of Mr. Bill... I'm just sayin'

lol. And you did.
And you said yourself you were reluctant to bring it up



So I'm agreeing with you, especially now with the added sour whipping cream topping.

As to the "campaign promise"...c'mon...he's a politician...of sorts...isn't he? *shrug*

Fair enough. Problem was I was one of a few who actually knew about it and one of the only that could "out" it since the others needed to remain somewhat objective before any vote. Knowing it would not apppear before I was done I had no such restrictions. I do know it came as quite a shock to many Aberdeen residents. But as said its done. Time to move on to the city business at hand.

Perhaps you need to practice the political art of "leaking".

True that would be the politically smart move. However I prefer to own my statements and not make them by hiding through a third party. This of course puts me in a political minority even on the local level. If it means lack of votes, etc so be it. At least I can look myself in the mirror at the end of the day. That is how I usually judge what I do and don't do.

Don't handicap yourself with false dichotomies.
Smart political moves don't automatically equal "unethical".

It would have sounded less like "sour grapes" had you left "campaign promise" out of it...and just stated your position on the health insurance...uh...inquiry.

But that's just m.o..

I think inquiry and outrage is the way the system is supposed to work, see Chicken Ordinance, and Levy Shift.

I try very hard not to take sides on matters, of course we can all only be in one place at one time. That said, I'll add that no one called Simpson for a comment before the story came out.

Good to know but I, too, question the slant of the story. Just the simple fact that he wasn't going to be picking up all of the premium and expected Aberdeen residents to pay toward it was ethically wrong and I still question how something like that can be added into a budget that was already passed without this expense. When certain programs, like fire education classes for youth, IIRC, are cut that would cost roughly the same as the city's share of Simpson's premium, it raises big ethical flags for me. So I have to agree with MWMI, that it was more about the backlash then it was about the dollar amounts.

ETA: And, while we're at it, when is somebody in the local news going to look into the season tickets for the D&R statement by Simpson since they don't even sell season tickets?

Any gift over $50/year in value must be reported to the PDC. I may not be remembering the $50 exactly right but it's in that ballpark.

But does he have a real Birth certificate?

I guess it's one of those state-accepted wrongs because that's how the rcw works. In much the same way that Aberdeen residents pay toward the premium of Aberdeen Employees.

I think shining a brighter light on some of the rcw's out there would raise as much or more attention.

So, it seems that the public disclosure commission reporting laws were changed way back in 1995 so that the only mandatory reportable gifts are food or drink, travel, or seminars valued at $50 or more. A couple grand in annual concert tickets is fine and dandy--non-reportable--from one business to an elected official with influence to wield. At least, that's what I'm finding on the PDC website.

I haven't gone to the PDC website or the handbook for a while. But, I wonder how the rules differ for partisan and non-partsan races.

Additionally, the fines are typically insignificant for a small (couple grand or lower is small by PDC standards) and first-time oversight.

Remember a Commissioner's race a few years back when one candidate failed to file any PDC reports disclosing any donors... or his single donor? I believe he was fined $100. He paid the fine, or was given the money by donors... or his single donor... and never filed any papers. I don't think we saw that in the papers or hear about it on Coffee Talk.

It seems the PDC is only as strong as a candidate's wallet is weak or a donor's disdain for government.

I hazily recall a discussion at an Aberdeen City Council meeting back in the 'nineties where Mayor Gurrad was declining a gift of tickets to something because, he said, he didn't want to have to report the gift, which was above the reporting threshold. I'm pretty sure it was to the gala grand opening of the Lemay auto collection to the public, possibly the museum. Some of the councilmembers who have been named in the last day or two did attend.

It doesn't sound like local news have the staff or resources to be chasing down these kind of stories anymore. Just covering meetings, which is the first priority, seems to expend most available resources.

I will look into it, but the last time the mayor was seen at the D&R, he was a bit more critical of the performance.


Hey on a more positive note:
http://kbkw.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3578

...then i promise to stop spamming my own links
..and smilie faces :b

Really? We just assumed it was all gifts so declined everything offered because it didn't seem ethical to accept anything anyway. I didn't realize reportables were so limited. This makes no sense. So now we have to question whether an elected official bought their own car, house, furniture, clothes, boat, motorcycle, bike, pool table, whatever as any of these can be given without being reported? What a crock!

I agree--the info I found on the PDC website makes no sense, and leaves the door open for graft and bribery and influence-peddling on a large scale. Must be missing something. Maybe a criminal statute?

I haven't read the new laws but this was in the Seattle Times today.