An East Baton Rouge Metro Council member’s lone vote Wednesday hamstrung an insurance switch, drawing backlash from colleagues who said he’s stalling a plan that could save millions in taxpayer dollars.
With only 7 council members in attendance on Wednesday, every member present needed to vote for it to pass.
However, Darryl Hurst’s vote against a measure to change the city-parish insurance plan for retirees stalled it, as an Oct. 1 deadline looms.
Hurst said he feared it could cause the city-parish civil fees if retirees sued, despite opinions from attorneys, council members and insurance consultants who said other cities have made the switch and they did not see any legal issues.
“Why wait until this vote came up?” Racca said, “We’ve all talked about working on this for two years, five years.”
Democrats Twanha Harris, Cleve Dunn Jr., Anthony Kenney, and Carolyn Coleman were all absent and instead at a Congressional Black Caucus event in Washington, D.C. Mayor-Pro Tempore Brandon Noel, a Republican, was also absent.
Hurst said he could not vote to approve until he had an opinion from the Louisiana Attorney General.
“I believe in a special meeting, and it may pass, but like many things on this council, they pass without me,” Hurst said.
The plan could save the city-parish up to $19 million annually, city-parish officials have said, through a switch to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Advantage Plan, which council members believe offers better benefits and comes at a lower cost.
“It’s kind of ironic that the member who is against saving this money is the one who has no problem spending it,” said council member Aaron Moak after the meeting, referring to Hurst’s controversial purchase of an off-road vehicle with district funds.
Although the insurance switch was first introduced to the council over two months ago, as of Wednesday evening, Hurst had still not placed a request for an Attorney General’s opinion on the Metro Council agenda.
Attorneys and insurance consultants explained that employees could opt out of the new plan and return to their old one if they didn’t like it.
Hurst’s dissenting vote means the council will hold a special meeting next week to vote again with more people present. That meeting will take place on Monday, Sept. 29, at 4 p.m.
“It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and time,” Racca said. “We’re going to have to do it all over again.”
Racca said the council “did the city-parish employees a disservice” on Wednesday by not passing it, and while her colleague Moak agreed the body as a whole failed, he had no problem pointing a finger at Hurst individually.
“The council as a whole did not get it passed. But was it his fault? Yes. Was it unnecessary? Yes,” Moak said.
Racca and Moak both said Wednesday was the first time they had heard these legal concerns from Hurst related to the plan switch.
Though the council had been working on the switch for months, Hurst said he still needed more information before he could approve it and was ok being the only no vote.
“I’m okay with being like Jesus and being on an island by myself and focusing on people first, over politics,” Hurst said.
At least one of Hurst’s colleagues did not buy the argument.
“He’s grandstanding and did that to prove a point,” Moak said. “I think he did that on purpose. I think he knew several colleagues were out of town; he knew we were tight as far as quorum. And I think he knew he had his opportunity.”