We honor them on Memorial Day with a parade and ceremony. Many homes are adorned with flags and yellow ribbons. And recently the library added a World War II scrapbook to its digital collection focused exclusively on servicemen from Nazareth.
I'm not going to go so far as to say we are the most supportive community, but I'd say we respect and honor their service well.
Yesterday I learned of an action taken by our Borough that was rather disappointing. Nazareth Police Detective Alan Koch was called to duty for a second time and is scheduled to leave in the next few weeks. On Friday, June 6, less than one month from his deployment, he was informed that his health and life insurance would be dropped at the end of the month. This was a surprise to him and his family since it was kept in place during his last deployment.
I don't know what is considered common in these circumstances, but I did find online an article from a site much like this one, but covering North Cambridge, MA, posted on November 8, 2007 regarding this very topic (read it here).
The article opens:
The city councillor and state representative for East Cambridge today announced that a bill he sponsored to guarantee that city of Cambridge employees called to active military duty receive full base salary and benefits for the duration of their service was signed into law by Gov. Deval L. Patrick.The post goes to quote from the State Rep. and Councilpeople regarding the challenges and difficulties of the employees who are called to serve as well as those for their family. They note how difficult it is financially when often they serve at lower pay and greater risk.
“The people of Cambridge understand that supporting our troops and supporting the war those troops are fighting in are often two very different things,” said State Rep. Timothy J. Toomey Jr., D, who was re-elected Tuesday to the city council.
Again, I don't know much about this issue or topic, but in looking at these two instances, it appears pretty clear in my mind which community got it right, and I'm sorry to say it wasn't us.
Maybe a corrective action can be taken to ensure that any employee in the borough called to service will be provided for in a way that says thank you.
18 comments:
I absolutely support our troops but at the same time, they are serving by choice. Most of my friends in the reserves signed up for the long haul to get the guaranteed pension. It is my understanding (which I admit I could very well be wrong) that the additional pay received for deployment to Iraq should cover the additional expense of health care for the soldiers' families.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but I think if a soldier was entitled to paid health care for his/her family, the military should provide it, not the soldier's employer.
Anonymous
I understand your point but I would suggest that the soldier or his employer could provide him with a larger amount of insurance and benefits for his family a lot cheaper then if we ran it through the kidneys of the Federal government who would probably find a way to run it through the kidneys of the state.
I sure hope you don't get flamed - we need to be able to discuss these issues, not kick someone's teeth in because we don't like their opinion.
My biggest problem with this is the fact that it was done the first time (right or wrong) and the family was only informed a few weeks prior to his departure. The inconsistency and timing is my biggest issue.
We must know how many current employees could be called to active duty which would give us an idea as to whether or not we could support providing IF they were all called for a year.
I've never served and I don't know how they do it, especially with family. Yes they chose to do it, but where would we be if they all chose not to?
While it is a cost question, it is more a question of doing what is right and good.
Thanks for the comments and out of your concern I'd simply remind everyone who hasn't yet melted to keep it focused on the issue not the person.
Paying benefits is obviously above and beyond the contract of a borough employee. I agree that if they did it once, then they should continue. I feel a problem may have occurred that now others may seek employment in Nazareth thinking that if they get called to active duty, they will be entitled to benefits too. I imagine that when the benefits were paid the first time, the borough was under assumption that some sort of resolution to the war in Iraq would be on the horizon. Instead, it surely seems that future redeployments are a real possibility.
Hypothetically speaking, if 10 soldiers live in Nazareth Borough but only one works for the borough, is it really fair that their tax money helps pay the one's benefits even though their private employers may not? If the borough pays benefits for the one using public funds, wouldn't it be unfair if the borough does not provide benefits for all.
Regardless, I hope Al has a safe tour.
I understand all of the 'hypothetical' situations described. The sad fact is the amount of time the Borough gave Alan and his family to address this very critical issue. The letter was received on the 6th of June and Alan's deployment is on the 22nd of June. Imagine yourself trying to handle everything that you would need to be gone for a year and then add this most critical element to the mix - not much time!
Our troops are serving by choice - but they are not being deployed by choice.
It is very sad to me to think that after 13 years of dedication to this community serving as a police officer and educating our children - this is how he is thanked.
God Bless Alan and his family.
First to Alan, thank you for your service to our country, and stay safe on your upcoming tour.
As a person that has served on both active duty as well as a reservist, we all go into it knowing that there is always the possibility that we could end up in a war zone. For a citizen soldier, it is a little different than someone on active duty.
For reservists, many organizations make an effort (or should) to make sure that the citizen soldier's family is covered, giving them one less thing to worry about while they are deployed in a dangerous situation that requires them to think primarily about their survival. This has ranged from outright covering their benefits to at a minimum offering COBRA coverage, but more often than not, covering the family as if the employee were on a leave of absence.
For the burough to pull this, and on such short notice, is beyond belief.
The military has placed a greater importance on combat units in the National Guard and support units in the Reserves. This was the "peace" dividend that we got after the first Gulf War.
To do this, we need to make sure that we continue to get and retain qualified people in these units. If we send a message to these soldiers that if they and there families are out of luck if the soldier is deployed, you will start to see fewer people enlist or re-enlist, which will have the net effect of diminishing our military's effectiveness, not to mention our State's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters.
As a citizen, I have no problem with some of my tax dollars going to keep this family covered with insurance, and that anyone would be against this is beyond me. Compared to the amounts of tax dollars wasted by our local government, this is but a drop in the bucket, but a drop worth spilling.
To anon 5:03 pm, you are totally correct in your comment. Many of us are in total agreement with you expressing our empathy, offer our help and support while thanking Alan Koch and his family for putting the care with kindness into this community over the years. If coverage was provide in the past why change it now on such a stunning short notice?
Want to clarify that while the borough is not providing coverage, there is coverage available to him and his family (no idea the implications on cost, service, current doctors, etc).
The timing and change was what I found problematic and why I decided to make the post.
I did speak with someone at the borough and that individual believed that while the letter only came on Friday, it was thought that Detective Koch was already aware or should have been, of the change.
At the end of the day, if this was a by the book decision I still think we should do what we can to do as much as we can so long as it is consistent for all employees, not select individuals.
We want good people working for the borough and wanting to work for the borough. When you go out of your way to take care of them, they'll reciprocate.
I would like to wish the best of luck to Alan and his family.
In regards to his insurance, I think it is in poor taste of the borough not to continue his families benefits.
I have worked closely with reservists and national guard members as the coordinator of the air national guard family readiness program and as a wife of a national guard member. This being said I have been trained on what benefits the famiies receive both during deployments and when they are not deployed. His family will have limited insurance under tricare considering the fact that they do not live on or near a military base. A lot of the doctors around here do not accept what tricare pays so the families must pay the difference. I also work for a doctor so I see this first hand. His insurance could also take upto 45 days from date of deployment to kick in which is long after the borough has discontinued his benefits. Since he had benefits the previous time, I find this in poor judgement of our borough not to give his family the adequate insurance coverage they need.
Yes as a member of the military he knows he maybe called to duty at any time, however, with all the cut backs we have lost a lot of our full time members which then the national guard and reserves must be called to duty. In this case I feel our government is to blame for many reasons.
Thank you to all our service men and women.
Since the borough has already supplied insurance before they need
to do it again this time for Alan
and his family. The borough needs
to specify this type of information in the employee handbook. They can consider Alan as "granfathered" and not do it for any future employees.
Is there anyone at the borough that the concerned citizens can put pressure on to have them change their mind? Who would be the person deciding his fate? Some decisions can be reversed....
probably the mayor and the police committee
If Alan went to jury duty for a long term trial, wouldn't his benefits still apply?
He is a brave man - and as the "Dare Dude" a very special person.
I was out of work for a while without benefits - it is an undue burden on anyone's family to have to search for benefits.
Alan will be provided full medical coverage for him and his family through the military. Council did not make this decision blindly! Why should the tax payer's money pay for a duplicate insurance policy? It was researched thoroughly and a decision was made on the facts presented. The policy is almost exactly the same as the one that the borough provides. Medical, prescription, dental eye, etc. And I would suspect that there is probably no copay with the military as there is with the borough. It is an insult to suggest that the borough would leave the Koch family stranded in regard to their insurance. They will have the same coverage with the military and probably at no cost to them. As for having the inconvenience of possibly having to switch doctors...Um..I think we have had to do that about 2 or 3 times as the insurance changed at the place my husband works. We did it and it all worked out fine and we got on with things. Things change, life throughs curves, but we don't have to strike out. I think the citizens of Nazareth should know that their council members as a whole would not do anything to short change any of their employees and as a matter of fact they are always looking out for them and at the same time have to be responsible to the tax payers and try to wisely spend their money. By the way... Alan told several borough staff previously that he didn't need insurance from the borough. If he had changed his mind he should have gone to the appropriate person and stated so in the appropriate time. He did not . I think that council made the right decision based on the facts. The public does not always know all that goes into the decision making process. There are committee meetings where these things are discussed, and no one from the public usually shoes up.( though they are welcomed) Also sometimes there are personnel issues that are discussed in executive sessions. Sometimes it's good they are because dirty laundry isn't pretty. Not something to share. I could go on but it's obvious that there will always be those who are doubtful of the integrity of public officials and no matter what is said to explain this decision, there are some who will not believe or agree.
Anon 4:34,
Assuming you are currently on Council and have correct information - here is what I've just learned:
1. Council as a whole made this decision
2. It was a financial decision
3. Det. Koch's individual situation was evaluated, which means we determine coverage for military deployment on a case-by-case basis and not as a borough policy
By extension, I'd have to guess that since his individual situation was assessed this was done in executive session as a matter of personnel, instead of publicly as it would have to be as a borough policy.
This is where I have a problem. This should be a policy applicable to each person serving, not decided based on circumstances, which allows for favoritism or persecution depending on the people involved.
Had it been done publicly the public would have the facts - they wouldn't be hidden behind closed doors.
Right now the only facts are:
1. Det. Koch notified the Borough he was being deployed.
2. The last time he was deployed his coverage was kept in place by the borough.
3. On June 6 he received a letter stating his coverage would be terminated on June 30 (presumably at midnight)
4. That he is eligible for insurance through the military if he has no other insurance
5. That he is being deployed to Iraq within the next two weeks prior to the end of June
6. He received less than one months notice that he would not have benefits through the borough that he had during his previous deployment
Since the Borough Council apparently didn't discuss the issue at a public meeting, we don't know what was discussed behind close doors in the shadows where the sunshine law doesn't shine.
Well, it really irks me that people are AFRAID to post who the actually are. I Live here, my name is clearly visable. I wish other people were the same.
This town is slowly going to h*@# in a handbasket. We are up to over 1700 incidents in the borough (I know I just had 2 cars broken into) PS: Moore Twp: about 1500 Much bigger area...
Anyway, I hope things change SOON!
So the truth has now been told...almost...see Bill White's column in today's Morning Call. The Borough was lead to believe that Mr. Koch would be left without insurance during his first deployment and felt it necessary to take care of one of its own by providing coverage for him and his family. Unfortunately they and the taxpayers were hoodwinked!
Patriot,
I think it is unfair to say the borough 'was led to believe'. This insinuates something was hidden from them.
They either did what they thought was right - kept his benefits in place. Or they didn't communicate very well with Det. Koch and made the assumption that if his benefits were removed he'd have no other option.
It appears this time around they asked him and he answered. Based on having the information, they made a fiscal decision.
It still does not change the fact that they gave he and his family little notice (less than one month) and that they COULD choose to do more and decided not to.
We've bought new police uniforms this year, bought special computers for the cars, and had many additional costs related to the new borough building. Some we probably needed, other things we wanted, but each was a fiscal decision.
I don't like that it was done based on the individual and I hope they create a policy that does as much as we can for people deployed to places like Iraq.
I also didn't like the timing particularly in light of the fact that the decision was different from the last time.
The fact that Det. Koch and his wife don't want to make an issue of it speaks more of them than anything.
Post a Comment