About Councilmember Navarro

I serve as the Council Vice-President and the Montgomery County Councilmember representing District 4. I am the chair of the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee and also serve on the Health and Human Services Committee.

Get The Latest News

Sign up to receive latest news

Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts

February 2, 2010

Montgomery Council Unanimously Approves Bill Providing Equal Benefits to Same Sex Domestic Partners of Employees of County Contractors


ROCKVILLE, Md., February 2, 2010—The Montgomery County Council today unanimously approved an “equal benefits” bill that will extend to employees of many contractors and subcontractors performing work for the County a benefit already granted to County employees. District 4 Councilmember Nancy Navarro was the chief sponsor of Bill 37-09.

The bill was co-sponsored by Council President Nancy Floreen, Vice President Valerie Ervin and Councilmembers Phil Andrews, Roger Berliner, Marc Elrich, George Leventhal and Duchy Trachtenberg. The equal benefits bill also had the support of County Executive Isiah Leggett.

The County has a longstanding policy, in law and practice, against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Montgomery County already grants equal benefits to a same sex domestic partner of a County employee that are offered to an employee’s spouse, through Bill 29-99, effective March 3, 2000. Navarro’s bill would simply extend this law to many employees of County contractors and subcontractors.

The legislation will extend equal benefits to a same-sex domestic partner of a covered employee recognized under a marriage license, domestic partnership or civil union granted out of state or to a same-sex domestic partner as defined in the new law. The legislation only covers employees who perform work for the County on a contract that is currently covered by either the County’s Wage Requirements Law or the recently enacted Prevailing Wage Law.

Benefits that may be extended under the legislation could include bereavement leave, family medical leave, sick leave, health benefits, dental benefits, disability insurance, life insurance and retirement benefits.

“When it comes to civil rights, it is critical that we treat contract employees with the same respect as County employees when it comes to something as important as same-sex benefits for their domestic partners. This is a matter of basic fairness,” said Councilmember Navarro. “Because we are a large County with a diversity of employment situations, we have people who provide services and do outstanding work over long periods of time, but who do it working as contractors instead of as County employees. This should not stop them from receiving the same benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts.”

Some of the important exclusions from the bill are:
· Non-construction services contracts for less than $50,000
· Contractors with less than 10 employees
· Contracts with government agencies or non-profit organizations
· Contracts for public utility services
· Emergency contracts
· Bridge contracts based upon a contract awarded by another government agency
Construction contracts valued at less than $500,000 or financed by State or Federal grants

Maryland currently grants limited rights to same sex couples through legislation passed in 2008 to establish “domestic partnerships” in the state. According to Equality Maryland, the 2008 State laws included 11 protections for domestic partners, including hospital visitation and the making of funeral arrangements for each other. The organization said the State laws also make allowance for a domestic partner's name to be added or removed from the deed of a residence, without incurring a tax liability, as with married spouses.

Montgomery County’s law granting equal benefits to County employees was upheld by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497 (Md. 2002).
»»  read more

November 19, 2009

A Rebuttal to the Gazette's Editorial Opposing My Equal Benefits Bill

Earlier this month, I introduced a bill to require contractors doing business with Montgomery County to provide to same-sex domestic partners the same benefits they provide to married couples. Seven of my colleagues and the County Executive have joined me in supporting this legislation, but the Gazette drafted an editorial opposing the bill, entitled "Equal rights bill needs work." The piece stated several incorrect assumptions about the impact of the legislation, which have been addressed in a rebuttal piece by David Fishback, advocacy chairman of the Metro D.C. chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. More importantly, it misses the point of the legislation -- which is simply that this is a civil rights issue.

That's why it is critical that supporters of equality come testify in favor of the bill at the public hearing. You can read Mr. Fishback's letter to the editor below, or at: http://gazette.net/stories/11182009/montlet174625_32524.shtml

Equal Benefits Bill Public Hearing

Where: Montgomery County Council Building
100 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD

When: Tuesday, December 1st at 1:30 pm

Note: if many people sign-up to testify, the hearing may be held at 7:30 pm

Sign-Up to Testify by Calling:
(240) 777-7803 (Please mention Bill 37-09).

You can read the text of Bill 37-09: [HERE]

Editorial on benefits equality missed mark

Your Nov. 4 editorial, "Equal rights bill needs work," questions the fiscal wisdom of County Council member [Nancy] Navarro's bill that would require county contractors to offer their gay employees with domestic partners whatever benefits they offer their straight employees with spouses. Since only a small percentage of people in our community are gay, the fiscal impact on a given contractor would be negligible; and in this competitive environment, contractors' bids are not going to be higher because a small percentage of their workforce would be able to avail themselves of benefits already offered to their colleagues.

More to the point, however, is that if a particular religious or ethnic group was discriminated against regarding work benefits, I doubt that The Gazette would argue that the council should refrain from making non-discrimination a prerequisite to holding a county contract because of the supposed potential cost or, as your editorial put it, the danger of "government interference in the private sector." And that is really the crux of the matter: The county would not contract with a company that engaged in religious or racial discrimination; nor should use the public's tax money to contract with a company that discriminates based on sexual orientation.

David S. Fishback, Olney

The writer is advocacy chairman of the Metro D.C. chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
»»  read more