Former alderman vows to continue lawsuit over health insurance

Part of a lawsuit brought against the city by a former New Bern alderman who is seeking health insurance benefits for life was dismissed in September.

Robert Raynor Jr., a local attorney who was not re-elected in 2009 after serving as an alderman for nearly 24 years, filed the complaint in December 2010. He said Friday his lawsuit is not over and that he intends to pursue it.

The defendants in the lawsuit are current aldermen Victor Taylor, Johnnie Ray Kinsey and Bernard White, Mayor (then-alderman) Dana Outlaw, former Mayor Lee Bettis, and former aldermen Sabrina Bengel and Denny Bucher.

The case was heard Aug. 5, 2013, and dismissed against the six current and former aldermen on Sept. 3.

But Raynor's lawsuit against Bettis is still pending.

Sean Partrick of Yates, McLamb and Weyher, who the city hired to defend the board members, said Thursday the lawsuit is still an open case because the dismissal does not include Bettis, who is an attorney and is defending himself.

Scott Davis, New Bern's city attorney, said he thought when Bettis' case came up, it would also be dismissed. At that time, Raynor would have the option to appeal to the N.C. Court of Appeals, Davis said.

'And the city will defend it,' he said.

On June 7, 2003, a former Board of Aldermen on which Raynor served approved new health care benefits during a Saturday retreat and work session.

The new ordinance gave aldermen who served more than 16 years on the board health care benefits indefinitely, with the city paying the premiums.

After the 2009 election, a new Board of Aldermen (the lawsuit's defendants) rescinded the free health care insurance ordinance.

Raynor is disputing whether it was legal to deny him and the 2003 board members the benefits they voted on and approved.

'I did not initiate this,' Raynor said of the lifetime benefits, 'but when it came to me, it made sense.

During the June 7, 2003, retreat, Bill Hartman, New Bern's city manager at the time, told the board that the city needed to offer expanded health care benefits to aldermen and future aldermen 'to encourage qualified individuals to run for office and stay in office,' according to Raynor's affidavit in the lawsuit.

The affidavit also says Hartman believed it was in the city's best interests to expand health care benefits to 'encourage others to seek office' and stay in office allowing 'policies beneficial to its citizens to become effective.'

'Neither the aldermen or the mayor initiated this ordinance,' Raynor's affidavit says.

But the board unanimously passed it, according to the minutes of the 2003 Board of Aldermen retreat. The mayor at the time, Tom Bayliss, did not vote on the measure, because at that time the mayor only voted in cases of tie votes.

Raynor's affidavit also said in 2005 that the ordinance became a campaign issue during the Board of Aldermen election and he and 'several other aldermen benefiting from (the) ordinance were re-elected with landslide victories,' ...and 'no one has ever challenged the validity of (the) ordinance in a court of law.'

During the Dec. 8, 2009, Board of Aldermen meeting (when Raynor and the old board were being replaced), several supporters of the new board tried to get the outgoing aldermen to rescind the ordinance, but the board did not entertain the request, according to the affidavit.

After the meeting was adjourned, Raynor and two other aldermen gave Danny Meadows, who was then interim city manager, a letter requesting the lifetime health benefits.

Raynor said he did not find out about the new board rescinding the health benefits until Dec. 18, 2009.

For his part, Meadows' affidavit says the new board directed him to write a letter to Raynor and the other two former aldermen (who were eligible for the benefits but not mentioned in the lawsuit) informing them their health benefits were terminated.

Meadows said it was his belief Raynor and the other two aldermen should have received the health benefits and the new ordinance should have only addressed future aldermen. He said he believed the city had a legal obligation under the former ordinance to grant it.

The suit is seeking reinstatement of the benefits for Raynor, recovery of health care costs he has incurred since leaving office, and punitive damages in excess of $10,000 for what the suit calls 'malicious actions by defendants.'

In an earlier interview with the Sun Journal, Bettis said the 2003 board's decision to grant themselves a lifetime benefit showed a misplaced attitude toward being an elected official.

'It is a breach of everything that is good about being a public servant,' Bettis said. 'Your job is to serve the public, not come in and reap benefits.'

Raynor said being an alderman is not a part-time job.

'We had to prepare, work nights and weekends and go to community meetings,' he said. 'If you want good people in office, you've got to offer them something because you've got to live.'

Aldermen will consider an appropriation of $5,000 Tuesday during their meeting to cover costs for defending the lawsuit.