Twelve members of the Iberia Parish Council signed a letter to clear up “confusion and misinformation” about health insurance for council members. There wasn’t much in the letter that hadn’t been reported previously.

It seems most of the confusion and misinformation is coming from the Iberia Parish Courthouse.

The letter refers to a “long-standing policy” of providing health insurance to council members “even after leaving office.”

The parish’s home rule charter adopted in 1984 specifically addresses issues related to compensation saying council members don’t get mileage. It lists no benefits like insurance, sick leave, vacation or other.

We haven’t found any record of any council approving a measure to provide health insurance so question the legal basis for this “long-standing policy” other than the parish paid for it.

If there was a policy providing for health insurance, why did the last council approve a charter amendment on the ballot for voter consideration last October that proposed raising the pay for council members and allowing that if approved, the “council may immediately authorize and approve the payments of additional benefits, such as hospitalization insurance and/or retirement contributions?”

No wonder people are confused when there is no record of a council or the voters approving providing insurance, but there is a record of the voters saying “no” to raising council pay and allowing the council to approve health insurance and retirement contributions for themselves.

We understand the previous council’s vote at its last meeting last year will end the parish paying for council members’ dependent coverage, though it allows them coverage under the parish’s insurance if the council member pays 100 percent of the cost. But that vote at the last meeting last year for the first time puts into the official record that council members get health insurance.

It seems like an end-run around a council making a public vote about increasing its compensation for the next council or allowing the voters to approve the same, especially after voters just two months before seemed to turn down a proposal that would have allowed the council to approve health insurance or retirement benefits along with getting a pay raise.

The charter clearly provides the public a chance to react to any vote to increase compensation but has been denied that opportunity due to the way this was handled.

They also keep referring to “former” council members, not “retired,” who have been getting the insurance benefit. If someone had a retirement benefit and there is paperwork that said insurance coverage is included, how can that benefit be taken away now? If this was just some local practice and it wasn’t spelled out for retirees or council members, then did it really ever legally exist? And are we also to think that any “former” council member might have had coverage too?

Is it any wonder people are confused?

WILL CHAPMAN

PUBLISHER