Majority Members Fail To Convince

After Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht took the oath of office at the Dec. 1 meeting, she began her term by challenging majority members for wasting money and making bad decisions.

The item best showcasing Schlicht’s tenacity was her attempt to overturn the council majority’s Nov. 17 decision to restore their potential lifetime healthcare benefits. Those completing three terms by age 50 would be eligible. In May, Councilman Frank Ury placed an item on the agenda to rescind the benefit, and Councilwoman Trish Kelley was likely the one who pushed bringing it back on Nov. 17. Despite Schlicht’s effort to get the majority to rescind the benefit (again), the motion failed with only Schlicht and Ledesma supporting it. MacLean, Ury and Kelley voted no but lacked credible reasons.

What was behind the flip-flop that began in May? Councilwoman Gail Reavis and Ury were both up for reelection, and both indicated they were running. Reavis, had she been reelected and served another four years, would have been eligible to receive the lifetime healthcare benefit because she’s over 50. Reavis and Ury’s campaigns were gearing up in May at about the time MacLean, Ury and Kelley began working together to oust Reavis. Ury insisted then (and again on Dec. 1) that his motives weren’t political. To observers, his agenda item in May seemed more a prank than an altruistic gesture, vexing Reavis by removing the benefit. Reavis surprised almost everyone by announcing on Aug. 8 that she wouldn’t seek a third term.

If Ury’s move was aimed at Reavis as it appeared, it served no purpose after she left. Except for Ledesma (who will term out in 2010 before reaching age 50), those who voted in May to rescind the benefit had only hurt themselves. MacLean, Ury and Kelley would qualify if they served 12 years, as all three would meet the only other requirement of being at least 50 years of age. Behind the scenes, Kelley sought to bring the item back. Contrary to statements from the dais on Dec. 1, it didn’t grow from the city attorney or city manager’s nonsensical concern Reavis would file suit against the city.

Kelley, as if to distance herself from looking greedy, made statements during the Dec. 1 meeting that she’s covered by her husband’s insurance. However, she currently opts to receive $825 a month by not using the city’s healthcare coverage. With the benefit back in place as of Nov. 17, the taxpayer-funded stipend would be hers for life – an amount that would likely increase with time. If she truly had no interest in taking taxpayers’ money in the future (because she “doesn’t need the benefit),” she should stop taking it now.

The more MacLean, Ury and Kelley tried to blame it all on Reavis, the more guilty they looked in defending their contrived benefit. Kelley said it would take “a lot of conditions” before the three could get the benefit, and that’s not true. The only unmet condition is that they serve 12 years, as they’ll all meet the age requirement. Schlicht discredited the excuse that it was “Gail’s fault” by summarizing, “If you’re afraid of being sued, you three are the only ones who would bring the lawsuits.” Reavis didn’t meet the requirement of serving three terms and has no basis for a lawsuit.