December 27, 2007    

Christine Bronson, Rulewriter
Arizona Department of Administration
100 North 15th Avenue, Suite 261
Phoenix, Arizona  85007

Dear Ms. Bronson,

The announcement last month of the upcoming A.D.O.A. rule change extending state-provided benefits to unmarried domestic partners should clearly be opposed for several important reasons:
 
The policy change is being proposed without input from the voting public.

A change in policy of this magnitude should not be a unilateral decision since the issue addresses both the moral distinction between married and unmarried persons, but the issuance of tax dollars in support of specific associated behaviors.  The voters, either through their elected representatives or by ballot initiative or referendum, should have a say in this decision.  In essence, a state policy diminishing the importance of the institution of marriage should be discussed at length and decided on its merits rather than by executive fiat.

The proposal is fiscally irresponsible and, most likely, illegal.

Changes in health insurance and other coverage benefiting state employees must not be made in a vacuum of information.  The Department of Administration did not reference  any study or rely on an evaluation of data that the public may obtain or review in order to justify the proposed rule change.  In fact, Number 6 in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Preamble states: “The agency did not review any study and does not propose to rely on or not rely on any study for this rulemaking.” 

Also, the Department of Administration did not submit any cost estimates to the legislature prior to including domestic partners and their children to the number of insured by the state. Increasing benefits at a time when the State of Arizona faces nearly a $1 billion revenue shortfall flies in the face of fiscal responsibility, but it could also be illegal:

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-654, the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) is required to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) at least 45 days prior to changing state employee health insurance plan benefits.  Statute states:

“The department shall submit a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee detailing any changes to the type of benefits offered under the plan and associated costs at least forty-five days before making the change.  The report shall include: 1) an estimate of the cost or saving associated with the change and 2) an explanation of why the change was implemented before the next plan year.”
.
The legislature received no such report.

In addition, preliminary cost estimates lie somewhere between $1.4 million to $4.2 million.  The Department of Administration submits it will not need to ask for increased funding to cover the policy change, but the fact that their current budget may accommodate these added costs implies excess in the department that could be trimmed in lieu of expanding programs.

The proposal invites fraud and government intrusion of privacy.

While the policy change allowing domestic partners and their children to obtain health insurance and other benefits currently offered to married couples will require affidavits signifying a myriad of facts including the “domestic partner shares the employee’s or retiree’s permanent residence; has resided with the employee or retiree continuously for at least the past 12 consecutive months and is expected to continue to reside with the employee or retiree indefinitely as evidenced by an affidavit filed at time of enrollment;…”, enforcement of such an inherently intrusive affidavit would certainly be deemed unconstitutional, leaving the entire qualification process without practical oversight and rife with fraud.

It is my hope the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council, responsible for approving rule changes, will carefully consider this and other responses by the public and reject this overreaching rule change.

Sincerely,

Nancy K. Barto
Representative, District 7

nkb