Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Marshals Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State marshals press Appropriations Committee to add affordable family health coverage; commissioners weigh operational details
Summary
State marshals and their union leaders urged the committee to approve SB 15 26 to provide health insurance benefits for state marshals, citing job dangers, recruitment troubles and declining applicant pools; marshals said current pay/fee-for-service structure and 100% premium costs limit diversity and hiring.
State marshals and their representatives told the Appropriations Committee that access to affordable health insurance is a primary impediment to recruiting and diversifying the marshal workforce and asked legislators to approve SB 15 26.
State Marshal Madison Beggs described 40'50 hours per week of duty, including late-night restraining-order service and warrant arrests, and said he could not afford family coverage though he could purchase coverage for himself at a high premium. Brian Mezick, president of AFSCME Local 2193, said fee-for-service pay and the need to pay full premiums makes the position inaccessible to many would-be applicants; he and other witnesses said the marshal population skews older, male and white.
Arthur Quinn, a Litchfield County state marshal and chairman of the State Marshal Advisory Board, described being shot while executing a capias warrant in 2009 and said the job has growing risks that argue for health benefits. Multiple marshals provided recruitment numbers: the pool of applicants fell from roughly 1,000 in prior recruitments to fewer than 200 in recent cycles, and the number of active marshals is reported in testimony at about 158, below recommended staffing levels (testimony said an ideal corps would number roughly 180'90 and the statutory cap is higher).
Committee members asked clarifying questions about eligibility for existing state health plans and about workers' compensation; marshals said some policy options exist but family premiums are cost-prohibitive, and that some benefits (workers' comp) are not currently available in the same way for marshals. The committee did not vote; marshals asked the panel to address diversity, recruitment and safety by making insurance affordable to marshals and to their families.
