By way of an overview, let me say that this Bill is no less insidious and harmful to LEOFF I members than was HB 2097.Although it is, in many respects, quite similar to HB 2097, there are a few significant differences.The present Bill, HB 2350, is likely to appear to the casual reader as quite a bit better than HB 2097; however, in reality, it is not.I can find nothing to recommend it to LEOFF I members.In the next few paragraphs I will discuss a few of my concerns and call to your attention some of the sections which you may wish to consider carefully.

Section 1

Subsection (1) of Section 1 merely sets the contribution rates retroactively for the biennium, from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013.The second paragraph, however, Subsection (2) of Section 1 contains language that suggests that the contribution rates can be raised to reflect the cost of “additional benefits.”More about this in later paragraphs.

Section 3

Very little needs to be said about Section 3 of the Bill.A point of clarification should be mentioned, however.In Subsection (1)(a) of Section 3 the term “member” should be changed to read either “active member” or “employee” to avoid any confusion.Pensions received by LEOFF I members have been held by our courts to constitute “deferred compensation.”The change that I have suggested would make it clear that no money is to be withheld from the pensions of retired members, and that contributions are to be deducted only from the compensation of active members.

Section 5

As you know, LEOFF I members receive medical benefits from two sources under the Act.The first is RCW 41.26.030(19) which enumerates a laundry list of healthcare services which are mandatory in nature, and are clearly contractual, and therefore, come under the protection of Bakenhus v. City of Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 296 P.2d 536 (Wash. 1956).The second source of healthcare benefits enjoyed by LEOFF I members is the designation of additional medical services by local Disability Boards.These additional medical services may be regulated and controlled by the Disability Board having jurisdiction over the member.One responsibility of each Disability Board is to oversee the provision of all healthcare services received by LEOFF I members, whether received under RCW 41.26.030(19) or under RCW 41.26.150(1)(b), and to approve the payment for such healthcare services.

At first glance, this new section would appear to preserve the present system of providing healthcare benefits to LEOFF I members, but on a closer reading, one realizes that there is no provision in this section, or in any other section of the Bill for that matter, which would preserve local Disability Boards to administer these healthcare benefits.Since the first sentence of this section makes it clear that Plan 1 is being merged into Plan 2, and because of other language in the Bill, it would appear that the administration of all benefits, including the healthcare benefits for LEOFF I members are to be handled by the LEOFF II Board.In the event that this Bill goes much further toward becoming a law, you should have me research the constitutional aspects of the Bill, and whether this provision would violate Bakenhus v. City of Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 296 P.2d 536 (Wash. 1956).

Local Disability Boards would appear to have no further purpose under this Bill.Certainly there would be no way for a Disability Board to designate additional healthcare benefits for LEOFF I members.Judging from the composition of the Board of Trustees as set forth in Section 7 of the Bill, I think that the likelihood of a subsequent grant of additional healthcare benefits is highly unlikely.The other question is exactly how the Board of trustees is expected to manage the administration of healthcare benefits for LEOFF I members that are presently administered by scores of local Disability Boards, especially when the additional medical services these Boards grant the members under their jurisdiction are so very different for each Board and group of members.This provision has the makings of a complete disaster.