This blog is maintained for the sole purpose of allowing the people of Peru and those interested in the cities of the Illinois Valley to express their views.
“It doesn’t take a majority to win, just a tireless minority that will keep starting brush fires in the mind and hearts of their fellow men.” Samuel Adams
Can anyone please explain what's going on with this issue. At one meeting we are told that the city only received 2 bids out of 11 requests submitted (Dec. 15th news article and Dec. 14th council meeting). Today (12-21-11) there is this article in the paper stating that in fact besides the 2 afore mentioned bids 6 more were received. Why the controversy and why the omission of truth? I thought we were striving for an open and honest government? This is not my idea of open and honest.
I'm thinking someone is trying to cover things up. like Clerk Bartly. Bartly originally stated Martuzzo had a conflict of interest due to a certain agent doing business with Martuzzo. now according to this article a conflict is not mentioned. I think Brennen and stuart wine and dine Martuzzo and Bartly a bit much. Does anyone know if Bartly and the HR girl is provided with health insurance? If so, would that not be where the conflict is? hmmm!!! Alderman Pothoff had no problem slamming down costs when someone else suggests something but when its his motion to spend a higher bid he is all for it.
Here's some more food for thought on this topic. This statement was taken word for word from the minutes of the 12-14-11 council meeting - "Alderman Potthoff noted that Blue Cross had originally offered a renewal rate representing a 14% increase but after reviewing the quote from UHCRV (united health care of the river valley) lowered their renewal increase to 8.75%". Does this seem kosher?
The rate was lowered as a result of the bid process. Not opening bids. The article reads two insurance companies submitted bids from a number of brokers. Two companies BCBS and UHC. The coverage expires on 12-31. Employees have a right to have coverage.
What I don't understand is if the aldermen knew there were more than 2 bids received why didn't one of them respond or say something at the council meeting? Or, weren't they aware of the correct number of bids received? And, if they were aware that Blue Cross altered their original proposal after seeing UHCRV's bid why didn't they question this action? Or, once again were they left out in the cold? When I read all these controversies in the news tribune, I question what actually happened and why none of our aldermen, if they were aware, questioned what was said at the council meetings.
The news paper explained the insurance bids in a well written article. If there was anything out of the ordinary it would have been exposed very quickly. According to the article bids were received after the deadline were not considered. Good business practices would validate that bids receieved after the deadlines would not be considered.
7:02 Of course employees are entitled to insurance coverage. No one is disputing that. Unless you attended the meetings and read the news articles (both the 12/15 and the 12/21) you aren't aware of the discrepancies that were presented to the public. lst there were only 2 bids received. Then there were agents at council questioning why their bids were not accepted or considered. Then the paper quotes that 6 bids were received and lists the agencies. There is more, much more but you seem to miss the point. It has nothing to do with denying employees insurance coverage or even denying them the insurance company they desire.
"By the deadline of 3 p.m. Dec. 5, the city also received bids from six other insurance brokers, five of them local. Bartley showed the NewsTribune a spreadsheet listing of brokers, the same spreadsheet the council had. It listed details of offers from Suarez & Associates, Peru; Hueneburg Financial Group, La Salle; Jackson Kahl Insurance, Peru; Boland Insurance, Peru; Dakota Street Insurance, Spring Valley and Rigby Group Benefits, Aurora. Many of the bids were the same or very close to that of Brennan and Stuart. That’s because the brokers were offering the same Blue Cross Blue Shield plan to the city as the one offered by Brennan and Stuart, Bartley explained. For that reason, choosing a broker was less important than choosing a plan from a provider like Blue Cross Blue Shield" Did the city go back to these 6 other companies and tell them what they had not told them initially that the city wanted to stay with BCBS?
Anon 9:23 the article stated that there was 2 bids. Only 2 bids, various brokers submitted bids but from only 2 companies. According to the news aricle others submitted bids after the deadline. Also the article mentioned that the employees had double the amount of claims compared to the premiums. With that health record it was fortunate that the City had any bids. As a retired employee its important that Peru has the level of coverage that they have. If the company does not pay the bills or is late then I am responsible. The city leaders probably had many other considerations that may have played a part in the renewal decision. It concerns me as a resident of Peru that some of these people making decisions don't have any business knowledge or common sense to stay out of areas they don't understand.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I have a few comments/questions: 1-Blue Cross will only allow one agency to bid their policies. Why was Brennan & Stuart automatically given that status? Did someone know we were already going to renew with BCBS? 2-UHC will not accept applications until 90 days before the expected renewal date of Jan 1st, therefore nothing will be accepted prior to Oct 1st? What was done by "those in charge" between July and Oct? 3-Bid packets were not sent out to agencies until November. 4-Employees completed their applications in November. Again, what was done between July and November. 5-Martuzzo's related party agency was allowed to modify their bid after they saw competitive bids from UHC as stated by Pothoff. Were the other agencies allowed to do the same? 6-Self funding opportunities were not allowed to be open for discussion. 7-Employees were not provided a question/answer session. 8-Union reps were not part of review process. 9-Alderman did not receive their paperwork from Martuzzo or the city clerk until right before the vote therefore not allowing enough time for review and comment. Does anybody else think this was a sneaky act to put pressure on the alderman to speed up the renewal process in lieu of time? 10-Why are retirees on the exact same plan? Can a separate Blue Cross (or other) plan be offered? Why should a few individuals put the entire plan at risk and cause all the employees rates to be higher? I think more research needs to be done on this line item. 11-Martuzzo was paid for this service but didn't complete his job. Will he still be paid? 12-Who paid for the new software that was used by the employees to complete their applications? Will the City be billed for that or will Martuzzo pick up that expense? 13-Was the total cost of the city's portion of the supplemental payments (helps with deductibles) included in the Blue Cross bid? Is there more expense that the alderman were not made aware of? 14-Will the city transfer the policy to a Peru agent in the future? 15-I would recommend that a consultant from "way, far, away" be used in the future. TOO MANY conflicts of interest even beyond what was talked about in the meetings.... 16-Policy renews on January 1st. I would suggest that we start taking bids on January 2nd for next years policy based on the length of time it took to get things put together this year. Or, maybe just a thought, switch up a member of the finance committee. Make a little more arms length. I can't believe he was bitching about fireman pay at $15/hour vs no discussion on a $1,000,000 budget line item. Hmmm... where are his priorities?
Anon 3:24 Health insurance is a complicated and a very important benefit for the employees. Please don't go into the business as a insurance agent, the employees have too much to lose.
3:24 Great questions! perhaps we will hear some story on this. I find all your questions interesting with #1 jumping out at me because I do believe the agenda for Monday's meeting only mentioned Blue Cross renewal and no mention of United. If Bartley and others new this was going to be just a quick " renew of a policy" why was it a rush when there was yet another council meeting before the January deadline? With a renew all is it takes is a phone call. This is getting crazier by the day. I do believe when other big ticket line items are voted on there are usually several meetings and plenty of available information presented. What the Hell happened here? They should have not yet voted yet and just requested an extension or a pay by month until they got this figured out. I still do not understand WHY Brennen and Stuart?? something stinks about that one.
4:21 Are you serious??? Which side of your mouth are you speaking from????......" Health Ins. is a complicated and very important benefit for the employees?" Yea... That is why this debate continues on with all of these questions because officials like Bartley and Kim Reese are not in the insurance business and had no reason playing consultant, or even messenger because the message sent was only partially delivered. $8,000.00 paid to a consultant to hide behind a conflict? hahahahBAHhahaa
REALLY??? $8000??? Merry Christmas, here's your check. And Merry Christmas Citizens, thank you for your donation. Please turn the other way, there is nothing to see here.
4:21. Insurance information and review should be left to the professionals with a strong respect both to the bill payer (taxpayers)and the user (employees well being) of the plan. City tax dollars should be spent in the most effective and efficient means possible. Yes, all employees would love to have 100% of all their medical expenses paid for. The days of the good old union health plan where everything was fully paid for is long gone. Everyone has to be held a little more accountable for their own medical expenses. It is clear that our consultant did not do his job, therefore, he should no longer be involved with city insurance issues. I am still confused as to why the Human Resource department can't perform this function? Never heard of outsourcing the "search" process before. Still can't figure out for the life of me why it took 5 months to get nowhere with so few employees actually taking the plan? It's quite possible that UHC is not the cadillac of plans, but we will never know because the decision to take BCBS was predetermined by a few. Also, BCBS has 100's of different plans available. Did the consultant only pick one plan? Maybe these options should have been reviewed with representatives from each department to get a poll of what coverage would provide for the needs of the majority of the employees while, at the same time, living within the budget of the City. I have to honestly say that I didn't have issues with the consultant, staff, clerk, or committee before this fiasco came about. But now, I have serious doubts and probably won't have faith in their input in the future.
20 comments:
Can anyone please explain what's going on with this issue. At one meeting we are told that the city only received 2 bids out of 11 requests submitted (Dec. 15th news article and Dec. 14th council meeting). Today (12-21-11) there is this article in the paper stating that in fact besides the 2 afore mentioned bids 6 more were received. Why the controversy and why the omission of truth? I thought we were striving for an open and honest government? This is not my idea of open and honest.
I'm thinking someone is trying to cover things up. like Clerk Bartly. Bartly originally stated Martuzzo had a conflict of interest due to a certain agent doing business with Martuzzo. now according to this article a conflict is not mentioned. I think Brennen and stuart wine and dine Martuzzo and Bartly a bit much.
Does anyone know if Bartly and the HR girl is provided with health insurance? If so, would that not be where the conflict is? hmmm!!!
Alderman Pothoff had no problem slamming down costs when someone else suggests something but when its his motion to spend a higher bid he is all for it.
Here's some more food for thought on this topic. This statement was taken word for word from the minutes of the 12-14-11 council meeting - "Alderman Potthoff noted that Blue Cross had originally offered a renewal rate representing a 14% increase but after reviewing the quote from UHCRV (united health care of the river valley) lowered their renewal increase to 8.75%". Does this seem kosher?
Lois,
I did update my alderman page in regards to the December 19th. meeting and the questions you had earlier.
Have a Merry Christmas:-)
Thank you,
Rodney Perez
The rate was lowered as a result of the bid process. Not opening bids. The article reads two insurance companies submitted bids from a number of brokers. Two companies BCBS and UHC. The coverage expires on 12-31. Employees have a right to have coverage.
What I don't understand is if the aldermen knew there were more than 2 bids received why didn't one of them respond or say something at the council meeting? Or, weren't they aware of the correct number of bids received? And, if they were aware that Blue Cross altered their original proposal after seeing UHCRV's bid why didn't they question this action? Or, once again were they left out in the cold? When I read all these controversies in the news tribune, I question what actually happened and why none of our aldermen, if they were aware, questioned what was said at the council meetings.
Do we have an insurance committee and if so who is on it and why did they wait so long to make a decision and present it to council?
The news paper explained the insurance bids in a well written article. If there was anything out of the ordinary it would have been exposed very quickly. According to the article bids were received after the deadline were not considered. Good business practices would validate that bids receieved after the deadlines would not be considered.
7:02 Of course employees are entitled to insurance coverage. No one is disputing that. Unless you attended the meetings and read the news articles (both the 12/15 and the 12/21) you aren't aware of the discrepancies that were presented to the public. lst there were only 2 bids received. Then there were agents at council questioning why their bids were not accepted or considered. Then the paper quotes that 6 bids were received and lists the agencies. There is more, much more but you seem to miss the point. It has nothing to do with denying employees insurance coverage or even denying them the insurance company they desire.
10:34AM
"By the deadline of 3 p.m. Dec. 5, the city also received bids from six other insurance brokers, five of them local. Bartley showed the NewsTribune a spreadsheet listing of brokers, the same spreadsheet the council had. It listed details of offers from Suarez & Associates, Peru; Hueneburg Financial Group, La Salle; Jackson Kahl Insurance, Peru; Boland Insurance, Peru; Dakota Street Insurance, Spring Valley and Rigby Group Benefits, Aurora.
Many of the bids were the same or very close to that of Brennan and Stuart. That’s because the brokers were offering the same Blue Cross Blue Shield plan to the city as the one offered by Brennan and Stuart, Bartley explained. For that reason, choosing a broker was less important than choosing a plan from a provider like Blue Cross Blue Shield"
Did the city go back to these 6 other companies and tell them what they had not told them initially that the city wanted to stay with BCBS?
Anon 9:23 the article stated that there was 2 bids. Only 2 bids, various brokers submitted bids but from only 2 companies. According to the news aricle others submitted bids after the deadline. Also the article mentioned that the employees had double the amount of claims compared to the premiums. With that health record it was fortunate that the City had any bids. As a retired employee its important that Peru has the level of coverage that they have. If the company does not pay the bills or is late then I am responsible. The city leaders probably had many other considerations that may have played a part in the renewal decision. It concerns me as a resident of Peru that some of these people making decisions don't have any business knowledge or common sense to stay out of areas they don't understand.
11:38 who are you referring to when you say some of these people making decisions?
Please correct me if I am wrong but I have a few comments/questions:
1-Blue Cross will only allow one agency to bid their policies. Why was Brennan & Stuart automatically given that status? Did someone know we were already going to renew with BCBS?
2-UHC will not accept applications until 90 days before the expected renewal date of Jan 1st, therefore nothing will be accepted prior to Oct 1st? What was done by "those in charge" between July and Oct?
3-Bid packets were not sent out to agencies until November.
4-Employees completed their applications in November. Again, what was done between July and November.
5-Martuzzo's related party agency was allowed to modify their bid after they saw competitive bids from UHC as stated by Pothoff. Were the other agencies allowed to do the same?
6-Self funding opportunities were not allowed to be open for discussion.
7-Employees were not provided a question/answer session.
8-Union reps were not part of review process.
9-Alderman did not receive their paperwork from Martuzzo or the city clerk until right before the vote therefore not allowing enough time for review and comment. Does anybody else think this was a sneaky act to put pressure on the alderman to speed up the renewal process in lieu of time?
10-Why are retirees on the exact same plan? Can a separate Blue Cross (or other) plan be offered? Why should a few individuals put the entire plan at risk and cause all the employees rates to be higher? I think more research needs to be done on this line item.
11-Martuzzo was paid for this service but didn't complete his job. Will he still be paid?
12-Who paid for the new software that was used by the employees to complete their applications? Will the City be billed for that or will Martuzzo pick up that expense?
13-Was the total cost of the city's portion of the supplemental payments (helps with deductibles) included in the Blue Cross bid? Is there more expense that the alderman were not made aware of?
14-Will the city transfer the policy to a Peru agent in the future?
15-I would recommend that a consultant from "way, far, away" be used in the future. TOO MANY conflicts of interest even beyond what was talked about in the meetings....
16-Policy renews on January 1st. I would suggest that we start taking bids on January 2nd for next years policy based on the length of time it took to get things put together this year. Or, maybe just a thought, switch up a member of the finance committee. Make a little more arms length. I can't believe he was bitching about fireman pay at $15/hour vs no discussion on a $1,000,000 budget line item. Hmmm... where are his priorities?
Just a few questions.
Anon 3:24 Peru City Clerk Bartley and the Insurance consultant Martuzzo answered each question in the above article.
Anon 3:24 Health insurance is a complicated and a very important benefit for the employees. Please don't go into the business as a insurance agent, the employees have too much to lose.
3:24 Great questions! perhaps we will hear some story on this. I find all your questions interesting with #1 jumping out at me because I do believe the agenda for Monday's meeting only mentioned Blue Cross renewal and no mention of United. If Bartley and others new this was going to be just a quick " renew of a policy" why was it a rush when there was yet another council meeting before the January deadline? With a renew all is it takes is a phone call.
This is getting crazier by the day.
I do believe when other big ticket line items are voted on there are usually several meetings and plenty of available information presented. What the Hell happened here?
They should have not yet voted yet and just requested an extension or a pay by month until they got this figured out.
I still do not understand WHY Brennen and Stuart?? something stinks about that one.
4:21 Are you serious??? Which side of your mouth are you speaking from????......" Health Ins. is a complicated and very important benefit for the employees?"
Yea... That is why this debate continues on with all of these questions because officials like Bartley and Kim Reese are not in the insurance business and had no reason playing consultant, or even messenger because the message sent was only partially delivered.
$8,000.00 paid to a consultant to hide behind a conflict? hahahahBAHhahaa
4:21 I would say the employees have it very good! City pays 90%, and you pay 10%.
REALLY??? $8000??? Merry Christmas, here's your check. And Merry Christmas Citizens, thank you for your donation. Please turn the other way, there is nothing to see here.
4:21. Insurance information and review should be left to the professionals with a strong respect both to the bill payer (taxpayers)and the user (employees well being) of the plan. City tax dollars should be spent in the most effective and efficient means possible. Yes, all employees would love to have 100% of all their medical expenses paid for. The days of the good old union health plan where everything was fully paid for is long gone. Everyone has to be held a little more accountable for their own medical expenses. It is clear that our consultant did not do his job, therefore, he should no longer be involved with city insurance issues. I am still confused as to why the Human Resource department can't perform this function? Never heard of outsourcing the "search" process before. Still can't figure out for the life of me why it took 5 months to get nowhere with so few employees actually taking the plan? It's quite possible that UHC is not the cadillac of plans, but we will never know because the decision to take BCBS was predetermined by a few. Also, BCBS has 100's of different plans available. Did the consultant only pick one plan? Maybe these options should have been reviewed with representatives from each department to get a poll of what coverage would provide for the needs of the majority of the employees while, at the same time, living within the budget of the City. I have to honestly say that I didn't have issues with the consultant, staff, clerk, or committee before this fiasco came about. But now, I have serious doubts and probably won't have faith in their input in the future.
Post a Comment