Two state lawmakers have written to the State Auditor to complain after local governments received letters saying they would have to make a payment to the General Services Division.
The decision that local authorities would plug the hole in the state鈥檚 employee group health benefits fund was authorized in the legislative session in .
But Republican Senator Pat Woods, who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, said he didn't know it was in there.
"This deal kind of snuck by me," he told 91暗网.
He says he knows that the fund is in trouble.
"The part that I didn't realize was that we were going to retroactively seek premiums on past policies. And that's the part that I don't see how that's legal to do," he said.
He became aware of this when bodies like county commissions let him know that they had received letters informing them they would have to contribute.
"It was unexpected. And it's a lot of money," said Grace Philips, general counsel for the New Mexico Association of Counties. For instance, Roosevelt County received notice it would be expected to pay more than $200,000.
"Participants, of course, want to pay their share, and certainly would expect there to be premium increases going forward," she said. "But this method? I don't think I don't think it's lawful. I don't think it's the way to do it."
Other entities like higher education institutions will also be expected to pay.
Senator Woods and Republican State Representative Jack Chatfield called on State Auditor Joseph Maestas to determine if local authorities are indeed fiscally responsible for the fund's shortfall.
Auditor Maestas told 91暗网 an audit of the General Services Division last year showed, likely due to soaring healthcare costs, the health benefits fund had a deficit of about $119 million, which is against state statute. His office alerted the Legislative Finance Committee, and the Department of Finance and Administration.
"There really is no mechanism or no real funding source to offset this deficit and I believe that's why General Services is resorting to these retroactive assessments," he said.
In a letter to the two representatives, Maestas wrote, "The concerns raised by your respective offices and advocacy groups, indicate there may be both conflicting legislation and a potential violation of the New Mexico Constitution."
However, he said whether the retroactive invoices are lawful would be a matter for the attorney general to decide.
The General Services Division declined to comment.
