• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Monday, 7/21/97 UC Regents consider extending domestic partner benefits MEETING: Board weighs costs, benefits of plan; supporters argue current policy is unfair

By Hannah Miller Daily Bruin Senior Staff Terry and Jim have been together for 20 years. Jane goes to church and grows tomatoes with her lover and their daughter Heather. With her partner of 20 years, Petra has raised her daughter Maya, now 15 and attending Berkeley High School. They are all gay or lesbian, and they all work for the University of California. And in a stream of testament, they appeared before the Board of Regents last Thursday to bare their personal lives and ask that the university extend them equal benefits. "This is not an issue of morality but of fairness," said Ron Kos, President of the Association of UC Staff Councils. Although university policies prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, partners of gay or lesbian employees don't receive the same treatment as the spouses of straight employees. The regents responded both favorably and negatively to the idea of extending domestic partnership benefits, possibly including health insurance, pension and survivor benefits, and housing. They urged UC President Richard Atkinson to come back with a concrete proposal based on their comments, which he said he will accomplish by October at the latest. The extension of health benefits would cost the university an estimated $1.9 to $5.6 million if the term 'domestic partner' is limited to same-sex relationships, and $10.5 to $20.4 million extra if opposite-sex relationships are included as well. But most of the regents' opinions were less about money and more about rules. "While I have no problem with other lifestyles," said Regent Howard Leach, "I don't think that they should get benefits. (Gay and lesbian) relationships can be initiated or terminated by someone simply changing their mind." "But same-sex couples simply don't have the option to get married," countered Katherine McClymond, the new Student Regent. In opposing the extension of benefits, regents argued that a person can determine their own sexual orientation. "They are afforded the same benefits everyone else is," said Regent Stephen Nakashima. "It is simply a matter of choice." Regents also pointed to the UC's status as a state employer. Although many municipalities in California offer benefits, the state government does not, and some regents felt that the UCs should wait for the Legislature to take a stand on the issue. On the other hand, argued McClymond, "we didn't wait for the Legislature or Proposition 209 before we passed SP1 and SP2 (the measures that ended affirmative action)." Pressure has been building from outside the UCs for a while. Ten percent of employers nationwide now offer benefits to domestic partners, including some of the largest corporations in the country. Forty colleges and universities in the U.S. already offer domestic partner benefits, including many with which the UCs compete to recruit top-notch employees. The argument over domestic partner benefits touches on the university's ability to attract the highest-quality staff and faculty. Most of those universities extend benefits to same-sex partners only, generally affecting between 0.5 and 2 percent of the workforce. Also at stake is whether the UCs are accessible to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. As Kos put it, gays and lesbians "experience hatred to a level that is politically unacceptable elsewhere." Supporters argue that partnership benefits are a step toward mitigating homophobia. The decision on domestic partner benefits faces time pressures, as more and more of the UC's organizational peers implement these benefits. Three years ago, the UC Academic Council (an advisory body to President Atkinson) recommended that benefits be extended. Although President Atkinson has purview over housing benefits, he has reportedly been waiting for regent cooperation on health and retirement benefits before proceeding. In the meantime, the city of San Francisco has passed an ordinance limiting city contracts to employers who offer domestic partnership benefits. To keep its contracts with the city (mainly at its UCSF medical campus), the UCs will have to extend those benefits to their employees as well.