Traverse City, MI: As his wife prepared for surgery to address a dangerously blocked artery, retired Michigan police officer Kurt Bazner wasn't thinking about politics, contracts, or legal arguments.
He was thinking about hospital bills and the credit card with a 30-percent interest rate that he never wanted to use—but had no choice. He was wondering how he was going to pay for another specialist, another procedure, another medical bill.
Most of all, he was asking a question no retired public servant should ever have to ask:
What happened to the healthcare I spent my career earning?
After retiring from the Traverse City Police Department and relocating outside Michigan, Kurt Bazner contacted the City to begin receiving the retiree healthcare benefits he believed were guaranteed under his collective bargaining agreement.
Instead, he says he received an answer that left him stunned.
"What do you mean? It's part of the contract,” has asked the department HR rep.
He recalls being told that because he no longer lived in Michigan, he was no longer eligible for retiree healthcare.
Yet after reviewing the contract himself, Kurt says he found no language requiring retirees to remain Michigan residents.
"Nowhere does it say... if you live in the state of Michigan, you get health care, but if you don't live in the state, you don't get health care. It just says you get what the members get," he told LET.
That statement lies at the heart of this dispute.
If the interpretation is correct, then the issue isn't merely a disagreement over insurance coverage. It raises a much larger question:
Can an administrative interpretation effectively change a retirement benefit that was negotiated through collective bargaining?
More Than One Officer
Kurt isn't alone.
During the interview, he described another retired Traverse City police officer who experienced the same outcome after relocating to another state down south. According to Kurt, union officials told him they had attempted to challenge the City's position but were unsuccessful.
He believes this represents a departure from decades of established practice.
"Historically, it's always been like that. You got healthcare no matter where you lived... and then all of a sudden she [Kristine Bosley] comes into the HR department and it's changed," he bluntly said.
Bureaucracy Has Real Victims
Contract disputes are often viewed as technical disagreements between lawyers.
This isn't one of them.
While this disagreement continues, Kurt and his wife have found themselves fighting two battles simultaneously; one against illness and the other against time.
“My wife, Marsha, recently suffered two Transient Ischemic Attacks (mini-strokes) and was diagnosed with a 70% blockage in her right carotid artery,” he said. “Between emergency medical expenses and the lack of the retiree health coverage I believed I had earned through nearly two decades of law enforcement service, we have been forced to seek assistance through a GoFundMe campaign.
But that couldn’t wait, Kurt had to find another way to get out of the financial crisis, at least temporarily.
He added, "We had to pay the doctor ASAP... We had a credit card with a 30 percent interest rate... but we had to," he said.
Today, they're still trying to stay ahead of mounting medical expenses.
"We'll start paying those folks ten bucks a month if we have to," he said.
No retiree who dedicated years to public service should be forced to choose between paying medical bills and protecting their financial future because of an unresolved interpretation of a contract.
Kurt has attempted to find legal representation.
So far, he says, every effort has ended in disappointment.
"I can't find an attorney. My buddy couldn't find an attorney either. It's frustrating," he said.
Whether the issue lacks financial incentive for attorneys or simply hasn't attracted enough attention, the result is the same and the question remains unanswered. The people affected remain in limbo.
Why This Matters Beyond Michigan
This story isn't just about one retired officer; it isn't even just about Traverse City.
It is about every police officer, firefighter, corrections officer, EMT, dispatcher, and public servant who accepted difficult work with the understanding that retirement benefits were part of the bargain.
Throughout the country, governments regularly negotiate contracts with employees who often accept lower salaries in exchange for long-term security.
If those benefits can later be narrowed through administrative interpretation rather than collective bargaining, every public employee should be paying attention.
Contracts are a critical part of employment, business, and nearly every facet of life. To alter a contract, or modify the language due to new, unwarranted interpretations of language impacts everyone involved.
In this case, it affected this officer, his family and their future.
"You can't screw people. It's wrong," he said. "We got into this profession for a reason - the benefits when you retire. We're not making millions of dollars."
Retirees had long believed, as it has been, that they would receive retiree health care regardless of where they lived, but only recently, out-of-state retirees were denied that coverage.
According to Kurt, the contract states retirees receive the same benefits as active members, and that nothing in the contract requires Michigan residency, making the denial inconsistent with the contract language.
Public employee contracts are interpreted according to their written language. But over time, new government officials, HR departments, or legal counsel may adopt different interpretations of the very same provisions. While long-standing past practice often carries significant weight, changes in interpretation can be challenged through the grievance process or in court when employees believe they conflict with the contract, established practice, or the original intent of the agreement.
According to Bazner, Traverse City's current interpretation represents a significant departure from decades of established practice. He attributes that change to the Human Resources Department's interpretation of the retiree healthcare provisions.
Law Enforcement Today requested comment from HR Director Kristine Bosley and other Traverse City officials regarding the City's interpretation of the contract and the decision to deny healthcare benefits to retirees living outside Michigan.
The unanswered questions remain as no one has responded.
Other unanswered questions are: why is Kristine Bosley making such drastic unexpected changes? What is her motivation? Is she running for political office and trying to put her stamp with “look what I did” while real people suffer the consequences?
There are also questions as to the unusual departure of previous City Manager Marty Colburn in 2023. Was this related?
Something is clearly off.
Additionally, if retirees were entitled to healthcare regardless of where they lived for decades, what changed? If the contract itself contains no residency requirement, on what basis was that requirement imposed?
Those questions deserve answers—not only for Kurt Bazner, but for every public employee who negotiated retirement benefits in good faith and planned their future around those promises.
This case extends well beyond one retired police officer in northern Michigan. It speaks to a larger issue facing public employees across the country. Those benefits are not gifts; they are negotiated promises.
If governments can substantially alter those promises through a new administrative interpretation rather than through collective bargaining, confidence in every public employee contract is weakened. The issue is no longer simply about healthcare. It becomes a question of trust.
Communities ask their police officers to risk their lives, work nights, weekends, holidays, and miss countless family milestones in service to others. In return, they promise wages, pensions, and retirement benefits that become part of the bargain. When those commitments are later questioned after the work has already been done, the consequences reach far beyond a single retiree.
Traverse City still has an opportunity to explain its interpretation of the agreement and why it believes retirees living outside Michigan should no longer receive healthcare benefits if, as Kurt contends, no such residency requirement exists in the contract.
Until that explanation comes, he continues fighting, not for a new benefit or special treatment, but for what he believes he earned years ago through nearly two decades of service wearing the badge.
Whether one agrees with his legal position or not, the moral question remains: Should a government be permitted to redefine a retirement promise after an employee has already fulfilled his side of the bargain?
That is a question every public servant, and every taxpayer, should be asking.
Want to ask Kristine Bosley yourself? Email her at kbosley@traversecitymi.gov
Want to help Kurt while fights these battles?Donate HERE.
--------------------------------------------------
Writer and author Eddie Molina has over 25 years of combined LEO and military service. Learn more about his interview articles at www.eddiemolina.com.
Comments