Connecticut Post

Police, fire retirees lose prescription benefits
Retirees lose drug benefits Move stuns ex-cops, firefighters

By BILL CUMMINGS
Wednesday, August 04, 2004-

BRIDGEPORT — A firestorm erupted Tuesday over the city's decision to eliminate prescription drug coverage for more than 200 uniformed-services retirees.

The new policy was quietly announced through a July 30 letter sent to about 220 former police and fire department employees, all of whom retired after June 30, 1997. The letter advises those retirees that prescription drug coverage will no longer be provided.

The change does not affect working police officers and firefighters, who receive drug coverage under their contracts. It also means that firefighters and police who retired before 1997 will continue to receive drug benefits under their benefits deals with the city.

Other city unions also have prescription coverage and are not affected by the policy.

City officials defended the move as necessary to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in yearly costs. Those whose benefits have been cut, however, contend that since they have been receiving coverage, it's unfair to take it away now.

"They told us we would have the coverage, and all of a sudden they yank it from us," said Tom O'Leary, a retired firefighter now living in North Carolina.

Mayor John M. Fabrizi said his proposed budget had included $360,000 to cover the benefit for the new fiscal year that began July 1, but the City Council cut that funding. Fabrizi did not veto the reduction by the council.

The mayor said the prescription drug coverage was not included in contracts with the two unions during the period in question, but was granted to retirees by former Mayor Joseph P. Ganim. Fabrizi said retirees cannot claim the new policy is a contract violation.

"It can't be considered a past practice because [the drug benefit] was never approved by the council. It's unfortunate. It's been proven to me that the benefit was outside the contract. These are difficult and tough decisions that had to be made," Fabrizi said.

The issue apparently hinges on language changes made in contracts governing fire and police officers who retired after 1997.

The city believes the changes meant the drug benefit did not have to be paid, while firefighters and police officers believe it does.

In a letter announcing the change, Edmund Winterbottom, the city's labor relations director, blamed tight city finances.

"The city has been facing difficult financial circumstances. With prescription drug costs increasing at an alarming rate, the city must do what it can to control expenses," he wrote.

Retired firefighters and police officers say they feel cheated.

"This is a long-established past practice. They violated the contract and we are not going to stand for it," said David Boston, a retired deputy policy chief and former head of the police union.

Boston, who lives in Shelton, said retirees plan to the take the city to court.

Robert Whitbread, president of the Fire Department union, said he has received "tons" of calls from irate retirees. "My ear hurts," he said.

"We are seeing what we can do. We think they are totally wrong. It says in the contract that they get the benefit and now they want to play games. We are upset," he said.

Whitbread said one option may be to take the city to court, although he cautioned that no decision has been made.

The drug benefit provided $1,000 yearly for prescription costs, with a patient contribution of $5 per prescription. Afterward, the city paid 80 percent of drug costs and the retiree paid the remaining 20 percent.

Some retirees said state law prevents a municipality from changing benefits already offered to retirees. A bill that would have prevented such a move was brought up this year but failed to pass. The bill died due to extensive lobbying by a variety of interests, including the city's hired lobbyists.

City Council President Andres Ayala agreed with Fabrizi, saying the city did not have to continue paying for the benefit.

"We saved $360,000 for the residents of Bridgeport. I'm glad the mayor did not veto [the reduction]. I understand how they feel, but we are living through the language of the contract," Ayala said.

City Council member Robert Walsh, D-132, said he voted against the current budget. But, he added, it's wrong to take away a benefit retirees were receiving.

"They should not eliminate benefits previously granted. That should be the subject of collective bargaining," Walsh said.

Bill Cummings, who covers regional issues, can be reached at 330-6230.