Politics, as usual
The Oregonian‘s front page today carries an article on proposed legislation in Salem regarding medical coverage for firefighters and police officers who retire after returning to duty from a work-related disability. Reporter Maxine Bernstein covers controversy over how to fix the problem, that injured officers who return to work prior to retiring lose the right to medical coverage to continue to treat their work-related injuries after they retire. If they stay out on disability until they retire, their medical benefits continue. Makes no sense, right? We want injured officers to get back on the job when they’re able, and surely we want them to continue to receive health care for their ongoing suffering from work-related injuries when they’re old. Yet next Wednesday’s Portland City Council agenda will apparently include a Resolution sponsored by Commissioner Saltzman, opposing the inclusion of this clause in the proposed State law.
The argument seems to boil down to whether the State or the City of Portland should have jurisdiction to fix the problem.
The article states of the proponents:
“The measure was drafted by the Oregon State Fire Fighters Council and has the support of the governor. Portland attorney Nelson Hall, who represents the council and frequently represents Portland police and firefighters who file disability claims, said he included the Portland clause in the bill because the city failed to fix a major problem when it reformed its disability fund. His brother, Ed Hall, is vice president of the Portland Fire Fighters Association. Nelson Hall said the bill will mandate that the city make the necessary changes to remedy what he considers the unfair treatment of injured Portland firefighters and police officers who lose lifetime medical coverage for their injuries if they return to work.”
Commissioner Saltzman’s response, as reported in the article:
“Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman, who spearheaded reforms to the city’s public safety fund approved in November, will ask the City Council to oppose the section of the bill that relates to Portland next week. He said he favors some fixes to extend medical coverage for injured Portland police and firefighters, but that should be up to city voters — not imposed by the state. “This is a local issue that we think voters should decide. This is an effort, I believe, primarily by the firefighters union to do an end-run around the voters because they think they can get a better deal in a new Democratically controlled Legislature where they probably wheel a lot more clout”, he said.” Yet the article also states, “Obviously, this creates a disincentive for many injured officers to return to work and appears fundamentally unfair,” Saltzman wrote in a recent staff memo.”
Isn’t that partly what State laws are for, to mandate fairness when local jurisdictions don’t? Isn’t that why some voters supported Measure 5, with its goal of equal funding of schools throughout the state even if some areas can’t pass levies to support their own districts? It seems to me, Commissioner Saltzman isn’t asking the Portland City Council to oppose this state law because it’s the wrong policy, rather because he believes the State shouldn’t be telling Portland what to do. Voters approved keeping the Police and Fire Disability system separate from the state system. But we also approved its mandate to provide benefits equal to or better than the state program. And clearly, this part of Portland’s latest package doesn’t do that.
The ballot measure sent to and passed by voters last November in Portland was flawed, in not fixing this known problem. It’s politics, not Doing The Right Thing, that is asking injured firefighters and police officers to wait another year until the City Council can garner more publicity by putting another local fix on this November’s ballot, to fix their flawed fix from last year. Firefighters and police officers injured in the line of duty deserve better. The City of Portland should be happy the Legislature is offering a way to get injured officers back on the job, sooner rather than later.