Penn Township commissioners OK benefits agreement |

Penn Township commissioners OK benefits agreement

Penn Township commissioners have approved an agreement that governs medical benefits being paid to spouses of deceased police officers.

The agreement calls for the spouse of a deceased officer to receive medical benefits until the person reaches the age of Medicare eligibility, which was the position of the police department and was supported by an arbitrator.

Township officials contend the collective bargaining agreement stipulates such benefits be provided to a deceased officer’s spouse for five years after the officer’s death. The township appealed the decision to Commonwealth Court. After arguments were presented, terms were agreed upon in which the township will provide medical benefits as directed by the arbitrator.

“We followed what the arbitrator ruled,” said Bruce Light, township manager. “We have to provide medical benefits until the widow reaches Medicare age. We felt as though the contract clearly said we would only have to pay for five years after the death of an officer. (The police) interpreted it differently, as did an arbitrator.”

The subject matter came to light in October 2009 concerning health coverage for Tina Gillen. Her husband Jeff, a township officer from 1998 until 2007, died of cancer Sept. 9, 2009, at the age of 37. Meetings concerning the length of coverage she should receive attracted several township officers and Fraternal Order of Police representatives.

Sgt. Augustine Deguffroy, president of the Police Benevolent Association, said he was pleased with the resolution approved by commissioners.

“I think it’s a good award,” he said. “I think it was an agreement both sides can work with and live with.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.