"On July 23, 2009 you made a public records request for a list of names of council members that are using healthcare insurance provided by Iberia Parish Government. The following council members are on our health plan:
|
Advertisement
|
2. Daniels, Maggie
3. Duncan, Roger
4. Fitch, Jerome
5. Hulin, Naray
6. Landry, Thomas
7. Romero, Glenn
8. Williams,Charles
It is my understanding that employee deductions are excluded from public records request.
Sincerely,
Donna L. McDonald
Director, Human Resources"
After receiving this letter I requested
again the amount that the Iberia Parish government pays for the health insurance premiums. On August 6, 2009 I received the following letter from the Human Resource Director.
"Pursuant to advice from our legal council, Mr. Eric Duplantis, it is his position that the dollar amount of health insurance premiums would be exempt from the Public Records Act. Mr. Duplantis will continue to research this request.
Sincerely,
Donna L. McDonald
Director, Human Resources
I again called and spoke to the Human Resource Director and asked how can something that is paid by Iberia Parish Government, figured into their annual budget not be available to the public. This was once again check into and on Sept. 9, 2009 I finally received a chart from Iberia Parish Government listing what type of coverage (employee, employee and spouse, employee with child, and employee with family). The chart also showed me the total monthly premium, what the employee portion of payment was, employee bi-weekly portion of payment and the cost that Iberia Parish Government paid for each type of coverage. It is as follows:
1. Employee Only, Total Monthly Premium $425,15, Employee Monthly Premium $53.14, Employee biweekly Portion of Premium $26.57 and IPG Portion of Premium $372.01
2. Employee and Spouse, Total Monthly Premium $850.31, Employee Monthly Portion of Premium $108.30, Employee Biweekly Portion of Premium $53.15 and IPG Portion of Premium $744.01
3. Employee and Child, Total Monthly Premium $786.55, Employee Monthly Portion of Premium $98.31, Employee Biweekly Portion of Premium $49.16 and IPG Portion of Premium $688.23
4. Employee and Family, Total Monthly Premium $1,211.68, Employee Portion of Premium $151.46, Employee Biweekly Portion of Premium and IPG Portion of Premium $1,060.22
In my possession I have copies of all these documents just as anyone could if you made the Public Records Request.
Let's look at the list of council members that are on the IPG Health Insurance Plan paid for by the tax payers.
1. Curtis Boudoin: Most likely already on Medicare and is using this IPG plan as a supplement to his medicare instead of purchasing his own he is purchasing one that the bulk of the premium is paid for by tax payers.
2. Maggie Daniels: Employed by the Iberia Parish School Board, has access to health insurance with the school board but it would cost her more money for this coverage so she uses chooses to use the IPG plan which is cheaper and the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
3. Roger Duncan: Appears to be self employed, most likely has coverage for himself and his wife unless he still has school age children then it falls under the family coverage. Self employed individuals normally do not carry health insurance for them nor their employees unless they are a large company. Instead of seeking a policy on his own he chooses to use the IPG health insurance in which the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
4. Jerome Fitch: Another self employed construction worker that has no insurance coverage nor his employees. He may have only coverage for himself and his spouse unless he has school age children then he would have family coverage. Instead of seeking a policy on his own he chooses to use the IPG health insurance in which the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
5. Naray Hulin: He and his wife are both employed as school bus drivers in this parish. They could most likely have coverage through the school board for the bus drivers association. I would venture to say that he has coverage with IPG for himself and his spouse since they no longer have school age children. Instead of seeking a policy on his own he chooses to use the IPG health insurance in which the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
6. Thomas Landry: He has a successful business as a Physical Therapist and his wife has a success retail store. He must not offer health insurance for his employees. He is considered somewhat part of the medical field. Do we know anyone that is hurting in the medical field? I must say, his place of business is a very good place to go for physical therapy as I have been a patient there in the past. I would venture to say he has employee and spouse coverage and maybe the possibility of still have school age children, not positive. In which case he would at least have employee and spouse coverage with IPG. Instead of seeking a policy on his own he chooses to use the IPG health insurance which the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
7. Glenn Romero: A self employed business man that must not have insurance coverage for himself or employee. No children at home of school age so therefore I would venture to say he has health insurance coverage for himself and his spouse. Instead of seeking a policy on his own he chooses to use the IPG health insurance which the bulk is paid for by the tax payers.
8. Charles Williams: From previous years was injured on the job and not sure what type of insurance coverage he could possibly have. It could possibly be Workerman's Comp or Social Security Disability. Being a person that comes from a similar situation I could understand why he might choose to use IPG health insurance because in this type of situation you are on a limited income. I just wonder if he has Medicare if he is using IPG coverage for a supplement. I know I write a check every month for $267.20 for a supplement. This is a big chunk for someone on a fixed income.
Now, you have the figures on the cost to Iberia Parish Government so go figure out what it must be costing or close to it as to what Iberia Parish Government is paying for Health Insurance for a elected, public servant part time position. Think about this when you go to the polls Saturday October 17, 2009, this weekend to vote. When you see Proposition No. 1 regarding Compensation or Raise for parish council members and giving them the right to increase their salary every 2 years, "VOTE NO!" Thank you for taking the time to read this information.


Comments
No Way wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:41 AM:
Why the difference? "
Duh wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:38 AM:
Maggie, sign up for health care at the school board where you work full-time. "
To IF THEY ARE wrote on Oct 21, 2009 10:29 AM:
Parish and City Employees are drug tested, why are they special?
I think it is time for some of this to urinate in a bottle
and way past time for others to BLOW!!!
I think this should include ALL board members in this parish. Paid or Unpaid! "
voter wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:42 PM:
Same Ole Same Ole wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:36 PM:
Ever consider how much jury duty pays? In 30 years at 2.5% increase per year would the jury duty pay not be quite acceptable in this day and age?
I have seen how my self employed councilman fits into this insurance picture and I welcome him to knock on my door at re-election time. Then again it would be the first time in 3 terms. "
Same Ole Same Ole wrote on Oct 20, 2009 5:34 PM:
Fair wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:51 PM:
Pay attention wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:45 PM:
Happy Camper wrote on Oct 20, 2009 3:36 PM:
IF THEY ARE wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:15 AM:
JIMMY wrote on Oct 19, 2009 10:08 PM:
Same Ole Same Ole wrote on Oct 19, 2009 10:01 AM:
Very well said. I will not beat a dead horse too much here, but thanks to those who voted against the raise. I agree with ALL of the aforementioned comments against the raise, ins, etc. My one surprise is that Mr. Comeaux is not taking advantage of the insurance benefit. I would guess that his wife's plan is more competitively priced.
Time to vote in some new faces. "
Jack from Lydia. wrote on Oct 16, 2009 5:47 PM:
Brian wrote on Oct 16, 2009 9:51 AM:
Area Resident wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:46 AM:
Deborah C. White wrote on Oct 16, 2009 8:28 AM:
disgusted wrote on Oct 15, 2009 11:03 PM:
Area Resident wrote on Oct 15, 2009 8:41 PM:
Deborah C. White wrote on Oct 15, 2009 6:40 PM:
It is funny how they never have funds for anything else that is important to the citizens of this parish. Do you have decent roads? Do you have sewage problems? Interlude Sub. has had sewage problems since the 80's and still nothing has been done although approached by these residents several times. Can they afford it? It seems they don't have those type of funds for other things but they always have funds, and then at a really bad time to try to get a raise. Try attending-meetings-and-actually-see-what-they-do-on-a-regular-basis. Go-see-for-yourself! "
Outraged wrote on Oct 15, 2009 6:17 PM:
You sound like some teachers that go to college for 4 years to become a teacher knowing what the profession pays and after they become teachers want to COMPLAIN about the poor pay!!!!
These people knew what they were campaigning for when they ran for OFFICE!!!
They like to call themselves PUBLIC SERVANTS, I call them PROSTATICANS!!!!
If they are unhappy because the public won't pay for their increases then they can QUIT!!!!
Vote NO for Prop 1 Saturday!!! "
Delcambre wrote on Oct 15, 2009 6:11 PM:
Give the Raise wrote on Oct 15, 2009 4:46 PM:
Truth of the matter is that one of the benefits public servants (police, fire, school teachers, city and parish employees) receive are health insurance, retirement, vacation, etc., perhaps the real issue is whether we can afford to provide these benefits.
Clearly it is time to also give our Parish Council Representatives a raise, although the suggestion always seems to bring out the worst behavior in some people. "
the plumber wrote on Oct 15, 2009 2:23 PM:
Area Resident wrote on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 PM:
Area Resident wrote on Oct 15, 2009 2:11 PM:
You are loading another bucket when you start talking about full time elected officials having health insurance. You discontinue for those and you have to discontinue for all parish employees. If I had an opportunity to get cheaper premiums and smaller deductibles through my employer, he77 yes I would go for it. And you can't blame these people. They are accepting what is offered to them. cont'd "
jackie wrote on Oct 15, 2009 1:16 PM:
Deborah C. White wrote on Oct 15, 2009 11:32 AM:
I do not have a definate answer to your question regarding health care insurance for other parish officials. If I had to make an educated guess, I would say yes, they are entitled to health insurance coverage. Almost all people who work in government are entitled to these type of benefits, plus. Have a great day! "
Thanks for the info wrote on Oct 15, 2009 10:01 AM:
Unbelievable wrote on Oct 15, 2009 8:30 AM:
To Barbara wrote on Oct 15, 2009 8:30 AM:
jd wrote on Oct 15, 2009 8:25 AM:
Outraged wrote on Oct 15, 2009 7:58 AM:
I will NOT support Prop 1 even before reading this! It's enlightening to see how much they and their families get at taxpayers expense!!!
If only we could get such LOW premiums!!!!
Sort of like CONGRESS!!!
THE ELECTED ELITE!!!! "