Already city councilors are raising questions regarding the DNT's story today on the city's group health care fund. We'll have more council reaction tonight on Eyewitness News. But here is an email Councilor Todd Fedora sent to the city, requesting response from the city at tomorrow night's COW or committee of the whole meeting:

Follow up:

Mayor, Mr. Winson and/or Mr. Johnson Per the article in the Duluth News Tribune this morning titled "Duluth Illegally Managed Its Employees’ Health-Care Fund", could someone possibly speak to this issue at tomorrow night’s Committee of the Whole meeting. I’ve got some questions on this issue, generated by the article, as this is the first that I’ve heard of this issue. Here they are:

1) What is the mission and purpose of this group health care fund? Article states that it’s to pay health-care claims of active and retired employees but the issues mentioned in the article make it look like there’s a wider goal here. Are they making investment decisions? Are they setting premiums? I’m a bit confused, at this point 1a) In light of the Duluth Police and Fire pension shortfalls, when they were self-managed and prior to transfer to PERA, are we setting ourselves up for a similar situation in terms of investment elections? I know this probably all dove-tails into the larger unfunded Retiree Healthcare liability mess, but what kind of professional oversight is there, if this is the case, in terms of portfolio advice? I’m thinking it’s the Minnesota Board of Investment?

2) Apparently the Minnesota Department of Commerce is alleging that the management of this fund has been "managed illegally". Why is that? Is it because it wasn’t managed as a "pool"? Or was it because it was managed by benefit recipients? Lack of technical expertise? Could someone elaborate on this? 2a) "(John) Grandson said he implored the health insurance committee to explore following the Department of Commerce regulations." What are the departures from DOC regulations? Because it wasn’t run as a "pool", or is there more to this?

3) It was also noted in the article that an e-mail was sent to senior city staff on Friday afternoon informing them of the DOC’s determination. If this e-mail was sent to senior city staff, why wasn’t the city council also brought "into the loop" on this problem. It puts us in a bit of a vulnerable position when members of the community and press ask city council members questions, and we have no idea what they’re talking about.

4) The companion article stated that a reporter attempted to attend a meeting of the city’s health insurance committee but was turned away "by officials who said it was a closed meeting". Fire union President Erik Simonson, who is chairman of the committee, was quoted as saying "No way that’s a closed meeting . . . I’ve never heard of anyone being turned away from that meeting". I’m puzzled as to why that meeting was closed? Open meeting law for PUBLIC officials states, loosely, that the only time a meeting is to be closed is due to pending litigation and Human Resources matters (including contract negotiations). I know that elected public officials haven’t been a part in these meetings so I’m assuming that the open meeting law doesn’t apply in this case? But it also does beg the question about "transparency". It is the taxpayers’ funds that are being inserted into the fund, isn’t it? T

hanks for your help in trying to understand this conundrum. I’m thinking that a summation of the issue would be helpful, again, at the Committee of the Whole meeting Thursday night, but I’ll defer to Council President Gilbert.