Newport
Concerned Taxpayers of Sunapee has asked Judge Brian Tucker to halt further printing and distribution of absentee ballots for Tuesday’s Town Meeting vote; remove the amended wording of the article, which is advisory only; and restore the language of the original article to the ballot.
In court on Thursday, attorney Carolyn Cole, of Lebanon, said the amended article violates both state law and the state constitution, and asked Tucker to rule it “unlawful.”
In response, the town’s attorney, Laura Spector-Morgan of the Laconia, N.H.-based Mitchell Municipal Group, said there was no material change in the meaning because the subject matter — health insurance for Sunapee’s municipal employees — remained in the amended article.
In presenting her argument, Cole said when the town switched its employee health insurance plan last year to avoid a so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost plans that was to take effect in 2020 under the Affordable Care Act, the Selectboard agreed on a new policy with an increased deductible and a reduction in the premium paid by employees, to zero from 12.5 percent. Further, employees would pay 50 percent of the deductible; the town would pay the rest.
Selectboard member John Augustine, who voted against the change in health plans, organized the petition article and signed it with 43 others.
The article said: “Should the town employees contribute more than zero percent toward the cost of their monthly health insurance premium?”
Augustine, who sat with Cole at Thursday’s hearing, last week said the goals of the petition were to let voters know employees would not be paying premiums on health insurance and to give taxpayers the opportunity to tell the Selectboard whether they approved of the change.
At the deliberative session in early February, the wording was amended and approved to read: “Since the Town employees this year are being offered a high deductible health insurance plan at a lesser cost to the employee and the taxpayer, shall both share in that savings?”
In court, Cole acknowledged that the new plan would save the town $70,000 in premiums the first year, but then said the town is raising about the same amount from taxpayers for an escrow account to cover the town’s maximum exposure to the deductible in any one year.
“You can see taxpayers do not save anything from this plan,” Cole said.
She said the change completely alters the original intent of the article, which asked “whether taxpayers consent to pay the entire cost of premiums.”
“That was the subject of the article,” Cole said.
The amended wording only asks if employees should share in the savings, she added. “It does not answer the distinct question of whether employees should share in the cost of the plan,” Cole said.
Spector-Morgan, who first questioned the taxpayer group’s right to sue as an entity because she said there is no evidence of its existence in terms of rules, regulations or other documents, told Tucker there is no “harm,” as the petitioners allege, if the wording remains.
Ordering that the wording be reverted to the original language would instead harm the town, which would have to incur the cost of new ballots and possibly hold a special meeting, she said.
There is no additional cost to taxpayers without their consent, as the petitioners claim, because half the cost of the deductible is more than the reduction in premium, Spector-Morgan said. She also pointed out that a separate article on Tuesday’s ballot asking taxpayers for $21,750 for the employee deductible reserve fund can be rejected by voters.
Spector-Morgan’s main point was that both the original article and amendment did not change the subject of health insurance, and therefore the judge should not rule the new wording invalid.
“It changes the intent, but not the subject matter,” she said.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
