Hands Clean

The Oregonian‘s editorial board follows Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s lead today (could be the other way around?) in decrying proposed legislation, Senate Bill 560, in Salem that would fix an obvious problem left unattended in the latest iteration of Portland’s Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund system. Public safety officers injured on duty currently lose medical coverage for their work-related disabilities if they return to work prior to retiring. The O admits, ” That is an obvious disincentive for injured officers and firefighters to return to work.” Yet rather than saying to the Legislature, “Sure, thanks for taking care of that, here’s the language we would propose to the voters in November if we had to wait”, both Commissioner Saltzman and the O urge another 6 months delay. As I commented last week, the issue isn’t Doing The Right Thing. It’s turf protection. And based on skewed arguments.

The O asserts, “It would hike annual medical costs for disabled police and firefighters covered by the Portland Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund (PFPDR) from $3 million to an estimated $6 million a year.” OK, let’s take that number as fact. (Really? Doubling the cost of medical care for the entire program? Wow, those officers have some severe medical issues, and it’s heroic they want to return to work rather than staying out until retirement). How much do taxpayers save, from having officers return to work rather than paying to keep them out on disability plus paying someone else to work? Don’t we need both pieces of information, to be able to judge whether the proposed legislation is cost-effective as well as reasonable and compassionate?

“But any further reform to the public safety fund must come through the front door, with full consideration and approval by city taxpayers, not sneaked in through the back way of state legislation.” No, sneaked in would be an administrative rule set by one politician and implemented by bureau staff under threat of firing – the kind of thing the Oregonian wants to allow future Mayors to do, in supporting Measures 26-90 and 26-91. We know about this proposed legislation; citizens have the opportunity to contact their State Representatives and Senators, and to testify, if they don’t support it. We have the opportunity to attend the hearing at City Council on the Resolution opposing the state bill…. wanna bet how many people will show up or take the time to fire off an e-mail to the City Council on the subject? I believe many citizens aren’t interested in voting on every little detail of issues they are only vaguely familiar with, like a pension and disability system that provides benefits when deserved and protects taxpayers. If the Legislature is willing to fix something the City Council missed last November, many citizens will consider that appropriate, efficient functioning by elected officials. The City should be working with the unions and Legislature to get the right language in the bill, not flying into a tantrum screaming, “Mine!”.

The Editorial continues:

“It’s worth remembering that just last year the city police and firefighter unions strongly resisted proposals at City Hall to move them into the state workers’ compensation system. Now the unions want it both ways: the benefits of their own unique, taxpayer-funded disability system and the most appealing features of the state workers’ comp system.” What part of our history’s reinvented and under rug swept? The pension system already has a clause mandating equal or better benefits compared with the state system – mentioned in the O‘s July 2005 attack on Randy Leonard, now helpfully posted on Randy’s site since the O requires payment for archives. The voters, City Council, and the Legislature have already approved the concept of “equal or better” regarding PFPDR.

Lost in the Oregonian and Commissioner Saltzman’s huffing and puffing over who gets to be the boss of Portland, is the larger question of whether Senate Bill 560 is good public policy. It concerns whether cancers in fire fighters are presumed to be work-related, or not. Heaven forbid asking Portlanders to think about statewide policy, while we’re busy defending our turf.

The Editorial states, “The proposed legislation would require “certain cities” to provide the same medical coverage to officers and firefighters as that provided under Oregon workers’ compensation statutes. That’s aimed directly at Portland; its police and firefighters are the only ones in the state not part of the workers’ compensation system.” What the bill says that affects Portland, is “Notwithstanding ORS 656.027 (6), any city providing a disability and retirement system by ordinance or charter for firefighters and police officers not subject to this chapter shall provide medical services for firefighters and police officers employed by the city that are equivalent to medical services provided to injured workers under this section.” But later in the bill, it says, “4) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) of this section, when a self-insured employer or the insurer of an employer contracts with a managed care organization certified pursuant to ORS 656.260 for medical services required by this chapter to be provided to injured workers”, followed by a host of regulations for those jurisdictions. It seems to me the bill is comprehensive, and trying to address medical coverage on a statewide basis which should make it easier and fairer for public safety officers to transfer around Oregon. Shouldn’t we be talking about the entire bill?

“Last fall, after voters put Democrats in control of the House and Senate, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski chose two prominent union leaders to lead his staff in his second term, some worried that unions would have too much clout in Salem. If lawmakers and the governor make this end run around the voters of Portland, those fears will have been realized.” Dun, dun, DUN! Here, in the final paragraph, we have the crux of the Editorial’s argument. The people in power in Portland sure are worried about working people banding together and actually having some ability to get things done, aren’t they? Public financed elections, forming a union at PDC, and now having the audacity to try to get public safety officers back to work as soon as possible. “The commissioners and Mayor Tom Potter must not stand quietly by”. There are your marching orders, City Council. “Must not”. Try telling me I “must not” do something – them’s fighting words. But there you have it: Hands Clean, even if it means waiting to fix a problem that should have been addressed last year.