Councilor George Bitzas listens as Councilor Robert Rossi explains that he is conflicted about a proposed domestic partnership ordinance.
Photo credit: Agawam Media
AGAWAM — Agawam employees must be married to claim benefits for their partner, the City Council decided at a meeting on Feb. 2.
The council voted 10-2 against an ordinance proposed by Councilor Thomas Hendrickson that would have allowed the significant others of municipal employees in committed domestic partnerships to be eligible for spousal benefits. For some councilors, it was the cost to the town, for others the language was too vague or otherwise objectionable. Many councilors, though, expressed their opinion that marriage is legal for all people and that should be enough.
Councilor Thomas Hendrickson, who proposed the ordinance, said many municipal employees are in committed domestic relationships with a partner without being married. The purpose of the ordinance is to extend to those people the same employee and health care benefits that are available to spouses.
“We have incredibly hard-working people who contribute an immense amount to this town” and “we want to extend benefits to their spouse and allow them to include them on that,” Hendrickson said. He added, “Marriage isn’t the right situation for everybody.”
Councilor Dino Mercadante asked, “How committed are you if you’re not willing to get married and make that step?”
Residents speaking during the public comment period objected to the reference to “two or more” partners. Aleksandr Tokarev wanted the ordinance to specify how many people would be allowed to register in a partnership. He feared people would “abuse the system” by saying they were in a partnership with multiple people so that they could claim benefits. The domestic partners would only have been eligible for benefits provided through the city, not state benefits. Despite this, he said it would “eliminate the need for someone in the household to work” and be a “backdoor to socialism.”
Similarly, Dennis Doreshenko was concerned that people would claim “potentially infinite” partners. He also expressed concern about the cost. The family plans under Agawam’s various insurers range in cost, but the portion the city would pay for a spouse is about $21,000 on average.
Hendrickson sought to reassure people that partners would need to cohabitate, and therefore, city employees would not be able to fraudulently claim an “infinite number of partners.”
Councilor Peter McNair said taxpayers are “strapped” and he could not support the cost of the ordinance.
For Councilor George Bitzas said the matter was “black and white.” He said there was no problem to solve because same sex marriage has been legal since 2004. The ordinance “discourages” marriage and the only municipalities that allow it are “extreme, radical left, liberal.” Municipalities that recognize domestic partnerships include Arlington, Boston, Brewster, Brookline, Cambridge, Nantucket, Provincetown and Somerville.
Councilor Robert Rossi disagreed with Bitzas. “This has nothing to do with sex as far as I’m concerned. Nothing to do with any place else in the country or the state. This is about people who choose to live their lives together with someone else. More and more people choose to live together,” he said.
That said, Rossi was conflicted about the ordinance. He said, “I firmly believe that people have the right to live the way they want to live,” but also said there are “consequences” to actions, including not getting married. Financially, he was concerned. The cost to Agawam for employee benefits would “knock your socks off,” he said. He suggested creating a program that would allow domestic partners to pay the cost out of pocket without city participation.
Councilor Cecilia Calabrese shared Rossi’s conflict. Despite personal reasons for being in favor of the ordinance, she cited City Solicitor Christopher Cappucci’s memo referencing a lawsuit against the city of Boston after it allowed benefits for domestic partners in 1998. In that case, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that domestic partners and their dependents are not insurable through the municipal employee. “I think that we’re inviting litigation,” she said. She also said that she “can’t accept” the language allowing “two or more” partners.
Councilor Christine Rickmon supported the ordinance. “It’s kind of a generational thing. A lot of people are not getting married for various reasons,” she said, citing the financial cost of it and rising student loan debt. “I don’t think we should tell people that they should get married or not get married,” she said. For her, it boiled down to helping municipal employees.
What was most concerning aspect for Councilor Edward Borgatti was the cost to the town, however, he said the language in the ordinance was “confusing” and allowing two or more partners was “kind of crazy.” He added, “I am for doing something for domestic partners because I think there’s a pool of people out there that we’re missing out on because they’re in great relationships and they just do not want to be married.”
Only Hendrickson and Rickmon voted for the ordinance. Councilor Rosemary Sandlin was absent, and the rest of the council was opposed.
