Letters - Thursday

Plus-1 a boost for region

Judith Bennett's letter expressed concern about the fiscal impact of a plus-one package for Colorado Springs municipal employees ("City's numbers don't add up," The Gazette, June 15). She asked, "how can we believe this City Council can be trusted to come up with a plan that would be ‘revenue-neutral' yet cover even more medical claimants?"

Bennett misses the point behind the proposal: while extending the offer of benefits to more qualified individuals, the city employee must pay 100 percent of the premium for the person being added. Proponents assert that the proposal would be revenue-neutral because an employee's decision to utilize a plus-one option would come out of his or her personal pocket, not the city's. Furthermore, the proposal is sponsored by an independent nonprofit, Citizens Project, and not City Council.

Although the headline of The Gazette's June 4 article indicates otherwise, this proposal is not a "same-sex benefits" package ("Push for same-sex benefits revived"). It will benefit a number of people by allowing employees to add one qualified adult beneficiary to their health plan, whether that be a domestic partner, an adult child who resides with a parent employed by the city, or an elderly parent who resides with a child employed by the city.

These beneficiaries must meet the requirements of the proposal in order to qualify for benefits.

This package represents a win-win situation for Colorado Springs: it costs nothing, but provides city employees with an additional benefit at a time when they are faced with furloughs and layoffs. In Colorado, 22 cities offer expanded health coverage to their employees, while Colorado Springs does not. Essentially a cost-free plan for economic development, this proposal could promote job creation in Colorado Springs, serving as a community asset that would attract new enterprises to the Pikes Peak region.

Beth Payne, Communications coordinator, Citizens Project, Colorado Springs

Carmakers help local dealers

Milton Woodham was curious as to how the forecast closures of GM and Chrysler dealers would help the corporation's financial status ("Who benefits from dealer loss?" Letters, June 15). Most people not in this business are unaware of the corporate support given to the local area dealers.

While the list is long, some of the highlights are; 1) financial support for floor plan interest on the new/pre-owned inventory, 2) point of sale signage, advertising and materials, 3) training cost reimbursement, 4) transportation of vehicles and replacement parts, 5) sales incentive payments, 6) sales, service, finance and parts support, etc.

One of the hidden expenses to the manufacturer includes "inappropriate" warranty claims payment and the cost of "customer care" in situations where the local dealer has failed to handle the customer properly.

On the scale of things serious, these costs are minimal, but they are present and must be minimized where possible.

If the plans come together, then we, the consuming public, will be the beneficiaries of the measures proposed through more customer-focused products, higher efficiency and quality, a more stable economic segment and leaner/greener/cleaner operations.

The side benefit is all the dealers now know it can happen to them if they don't do their jobs effectively.

Steve Fowler, Colorado Springs

Media gave reporter a break

The June 21 report, "N.Y. Times reporter escapes the Taliban," is in profound opposition to the way our troops are treated by the press. In the last paragraph we are told "the Associated Press and other Western news outlets respected a request from the Times to not report on the abduction because the publicity could negatively affect hostage rescue efforts." Where was the ACLU when the AP was told not to report this? Why did they not speak out? What rights does this reporter have that our troops do not have?

Here we have the brave men and women of the armed forces daily being put in harm's way often because of the rights of the American public to know every little thing that happens, nevermind the safety of our soldiers.

I am very offended by the Times' request to hold this information back to protect one man when our men and women in uniform do not have the same rights.

Pat Zynen, Colorado Springs

Utilities still wasting money

My wife was clearing off our kitchen counter and asked me, "What shall I do with this?"

"This" was the 2009 Water Quality Report from Colorado Springs Utilities. "Throw it away," was my response.

I wonder how much money was spent on publishing the report. At maybe a buck per brochure to each utility user, plus the time and effort to create it in the first place, I'll bet it cost a lot. My guess is that someone could be kept employed for a year for the money spent on this thing.

It would seem that the recession hasn't reached Colorado Springs Utilities if it feels it's OK to blow a significant chunk of money on a brochure that is unlikely to be read by the vast majority of its recipients. I'd rather they put the same money toward the new pipeline from Pueblo and thereby lower the rates that I will have to pay in the long run.

Charles Rollman, Colorado Springs