When the Fiscal Year 2003 budget was released in late April, it contained a provision raising the insurance contribution for active employees and those retirees who retired on or after July 1, 1994. Under this plan, the contribution rate would have risen from the current 15% to 20%.

Besides state retirees, the increase would have impacted thousands of retired teachers, many municipal retirees, and retirees of the abolished counties. Some 25,000 retirees would have been adversely affected by the increase.

Prompting the proposed increase was the state's growing $2 billion dollar deficit as the reason for the recommended insurance increase. As we have previously reported, the recession and the economic effects of September 11 have hit the state hard. Insurance was just one of many areas that faced cutbacks in the coming fiscal year.

"This proposal would have been a huge hit to retirees. A 33% increase in the premium would have been more than twice the COLA," said Association President Ralph White. "We could not let our members take a hit like this."

Those members, who retired prior to July 1, 1994 and are paying 10% of their premium, were not impacted by the proposal. When the law changed in 1994, which required all active employees and new retirees to contribute 15%, the Association was successful in grandfathering existing retirees under the 10% contribution rate.

As soon as the House budget proposal was filed containing the insurance increase, the Association's legislative team descended upon the State House. Our lobbyists were successful in rounding up several key legislators to fight to keep the insurance contributions at the current levels.

The first step in the process was to file an amendment to the budget that would reinstate the 85/15 contribution split. Since this amendment would have to be debated on the House floor, it was important to recruit key Representatives who could carry the issue.

Association President Ralph White, General Counsel Bill Rehrey, Legislative Chairman Bill Hill, and Legislative Liaison Shawn Duhamel spent days scouring the State House in defense of our members. Thankfully, several top House members agreed to sponsor our amendment and take the fight to the House floor if necessary.

It must be noted that in conjunction with our efforts, all of the state's public employee unions were fighting to keep the 85/15 split for active employees. The effort on behalf of organized labor was spearheaded by Rich Marlin, of the AFL-CIO. Marlin, along with representatives of the individual labor organizations, stood side by side with the Association during this battle.

"Any time you can build a coalition around an issue and work together your chances of success greatly increase," said Duhamel. "The issue of health insurance is of great importance to retirees and active employees alike. Altering the contribution rates to 80/20 would result in an unacceptable rate increase for retirees and employees."

Once word got out that health insurance costs were about to increase for retirees by as much as $632 a year, a number of key legislators stepped forward to offer their support. They realized that an increase of that magnitude, more than double the 3% COLA, was too much for many retirees to afford.

Amongst our most adamant supporters were two important members of House Speaker Thomas Finneran's leadership team. State Representatives Michael Ruane (D-Salem) and Maryanne Lewis (D-Dedham) cosponsored our amendment to keep post 7/1/94 retirees at the 85/15 split.

Ruane is the assistant vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Lewis, a close Finneran Lieutenant, is a House floor division chairman. Gaining their open support for our amendment was an important first step.

Joining Ruane and Lewis as a cosponsor on the Association's amendment was Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), who broke ranks with the House Republican Leader in support of our position. Other cosponsors included Reps. Carol Donovan (D-Woburn), David Flynn (D-Bridgewater), Tom O'Brien (D-Kingston), and Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D-Revere).

"Mike Ruane and Maryanne Lewis really stepped up for retirees. Both understood the issue and could take their concerns directly to the Speaker," explained White. "With over 1,500 amendments having been filed, it would have been easy to get lost in the shuffle. Our allies made sure that did not happen."

As the Association was lobbying on behalf of retirees and survivors, the unions were out in force fighting for active employees. Besides our amendment, two others were filed to keep active and retired employees at their current rates.

While a number of legislators signed onto the amendments as cosponsors, it was Reps. Lewis, Marty Walsh (D-Dorchester) and Paul Kujawski (D-Webster) who took the lead. Walsh and Kujawski were the lead sponsors on two of the accompanying amendments.

When the debate on the House version of the budget began on Wednesday (May 8), Association and public employee activists knew it was going to be a long tough battle.

House budget writers had identified the cost of keeping the contributions at 85/15 at over $50 million. In a year of a massive budget deficit, an increase of that size was not to be taken lightly.

After many days of personally lobbying each and every House member, the work of the Association and union lobbyists was about to pay off. Late Friday evening (May 10), Speaker Finneran made the announcement that the Group Insurance section was about to be taken up for a vote.

With Rep. Marty Walsh about to take to the podium to begin the debate, a number of other legislators raised objections to the amendment. Walsh had moved to keep all retirees and active employees, who are insured under the GIC plan, at their current rates.

A handful of legislators, concerned with the potential of a public outcry regarding the revenue enhancement package (see story, page 3), sought to raise the contribution rates on active employees entering public service after January 1, 2003.

The unions, along with the Association, felt that this move was unnecessary and would serve no purpose other than to pit employees against one another. There was little immediate savings to be had from the proposal.

After nearly 30 minutes of heated argument at the Speaker's rostrum, the issue was tabled until the following week.

"Everything looked ready to go on Friday, but things just did not work out as we had hoped. The real concern was that with every passing day, the state would not be able to afford to maintain the status quo," continued Duhamel. "We hung in there and continued to make our case.

"We continued to stress that retirees had already sacrificed in that they are picking up over $30 million in new copayments and deductibles this coming (fiscal) year - not to mention the inflationary increases, built into the health care industry year in and year out. The idea that retirees and active employees are not paying their fair share simply has no merit."

Late Monday night (May 13) the House once again took up the question of keeping the GIC contribution rates at the current level. After a short debate, the House passed the amendment by a vote of 142-12. Four Democrats joined eight Republicans in voting to increase the rates.

Joining deMacedo in support of the Association's position was Assistant House Republican Leader Brad Jones (R-N. Reading). He too broke ranks with the Republican Leader Fran Marini, who spoke against the amendment from the floor.

"I must publicly thank those legislators who stuck with us on this issue, along with Rich Marlin and all of the union officials. We had to win this fight for our members. No question that these are tough economic times, but this would have raised costs on those who could least afford it," said White.