The Malden City Council voted to authorize the city to enter the process for potentially switching employee health coverage to the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission (GIC), the council heard at its Aug. 12 meeting and adopted on a roll‑call vote with eight members in favor and one opposed.

The move directs the administration to begin the statutory process under MGL chapter 32B, sections 21–23 to develop and submit a proposal to the GIC; it does not itself enroll the city in the GIC or change employees’ coverage. Council members said the measure is the first step toward negotiating terms with collective bargaining units and retirees.

Councillor McDonald, chair of the Finance Committee, summarized the committee’s discussion and said the initiative is primarily financially driven. “The reason the city is considering this is to save money,” McDonald said during the meeting. McDonald and other councilors said preliminary estimates discussed in committee showed more than $2,000,000 in potential plan‑level savings; one councilor cited a higher estimate that “could be upwards of $5,000,000.”

City consultant Sue Shalu, who participated in the committee briefing, told the council the vote before them was only to enter the process. “The vote tonight is simply to enter the process of negotiations,” Shalu said. She added that state rules for the process require the city to demonstrate overall savings to move forward and that the city must return up to 25% of first‑year savings to employees and retirees as part of mitigation.

Council discussion emphasized three procedural points raised in the Finance Committee: 1) the city must negotiate with unions and retirees about any changes but submitting a proposal to the GIC does not require union approval to begin the process; 2) benefit comparability and choice will be part of negotiations — McDonald said comparable products (for example, a Harvard Pilgrim plan) exist among GIC offerings — and employees would likely have several plan options; and 3) the projected savings come mainly from sharing large‑claim risk in a much larger pool, not from cutting routine benefits.

Supporters said the evaluation could help close an ongoing budget gap. McDonald told colleagues the city’s FY26 budget relied on about $8.5 million in one‑time funds and that recurring savings are needed going forward. Councillor Cica said the potential savings could avoid difficult personnel reductions: “it could be upwards of $5,000,000 instead of us having to make some extremely hard and important cuts next year,” he said.

Council President Linehan said she would not support the motion, citing personal concerns about some coverage differences and a preference for the current self‑insured model; she voted no on the roll call.

Councilors and staff noted additional procedural details that will shape the next phase: the city can negotiate how the required mitigation (the first‑year sharing of savings) is distributed; it is possible, after a waiting period, to exit the GIC and return to self‑insurance (council discussion referenced a three‑year minimum); and any change would be scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, if the city ultimately enrolls for fiscal year 2027.

The motion to begin the process was made by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor Cica. On the roll call, Councillor Colon Hayes voted yes, Councillor Condon yes, Councillor Crow yes, Councillor McDonald yes, Councillor Cica yes, Councillor Spadafore yes, Councillor Taylor yes, Councillor Winslow yes and Council President Linehan no; the paper was adopted.

Next steps identified at the meeting: the council’s vote authorizes the mayor and administration to pursue the statutory process and to begin formal negotiations with bargaining units and retirees; details of any eventual plan — benefit design, employee choices, and mitigation distribution — will be negotiated and returned to the council and affected employees for review before any final action is taken.