Monday, September 29, 1997
Vote on domestic partners benefits postponed
REGENTS: Delay may mean would-be beneficiaries of health care,
housing plan will be denied another year
By Hala Ali
Daily Bruin Senior Staff
The UC Regents postponed discussions and decision making on the
issue of domestic partnership, probably denying UC employees’
domestic partner benefits for another year.
After heartfelt personal testimonies, 20 public speakers, and
deliberations among the regents, the board decided to allow
university President Richard Atkinson to go ahead with his proposal
on health-care and housing benefits for UC domestic partners.
Supporters left the meeting in confident spirits that their
partners and family members would soon receive the care they
need.
However, after the meeting Sept. 18, at the request of regents’
chairman Tirso del Junco, the board decided to conduct a vote on
the issue in November. Del Junco acted at the request of Gov.
Wilson, who asked the board to postpone consideration of Atkinsons’
proposal until he could be present for any decision on the
matter.
Because the next open enrollment for health care benefits is
Jan. 1, possible domestic-partner candidates will most likely have
to wait until next year.
Maneuvers such as this have more vividly illustrated the
concerns of the proposal’s opponents than any of their statements
have.
"I was disappointed but not surprised by Wilson’s characteristic
move to manipulate our ‘autonomous’ Board of Regents," said Xiomara
Corpeno, UC Students’ Association Committee Chair of Student Life
and Concerns.
Several regents, including Sue Johnson, William Bagley and John
Davies, had also pushed for postponing the decision until
November.
"It is something relatively new to some members of the regents.
We could use some more time to get used to this," said Johnson.
Proponents for domestic-partnership benefits argue that UC
schools are behind a national trend in both public and private
institutions toward offering some form of domestic-partnership
benefits. Of eight universities that the UCs use for comparison
purposes, four private institutions – Stanford, MIT, Yale, and
Harvard – and two of the four public universities – Michigan and
the State University of New York at Buffalo – offer health benefits
to same-sex partners of their employees and retirees.
They also argue that the lack of such benefits is affecting the
university’s ability to recruit and retain the most qualified
faculty and staff as well as the most outstanding graduate
students.
Regent Ward Connerly accused the university of discrimination by
denying domestic partners health care.
"There are people’s lives who are affected here. Every day we
delay, we are saying that ‘you don’t matter,’" Connerly said. "At
least provide our employees with the equal treatment we are giving
everybody else."
Atkinson brought the proposal before the regents for continued
discussion, saying that offering medical, dental and vision care
benefits to same-sex partners would strengthen UC’s ability to
compete for faculty and staff without significantly increasing
costs to the university.
Financially, the university estimates the annual cost of
providing these health benefits to same-sex partners at UC would
range from $1.9 million to approximately $5.6 million, on top of
the $400 million currently being spent. These estimates are based
on the experience of other institutions and businesses.
Support for the benefits also come at a more personal level. "My
most significant family member is not considered family," said
Marylin Dodd, a registered nurse and professor.
Several speakers at the meeting gave examples of illnesses and
injuries their partners had sustained that remained untreated
because of their inability to pay for the medical care they
needed.
Some supporters of domestic partnership argued against the
eligibility requirements of Atkinson’s proposal. Pat Hull, a UCLA
employee, argued that because laws differ for homosexual and
heterosexual couples, it is difficult to meet the requirements
included in the proposal.
According to Hull, there is no common-residence requirement for
heterosexuals, and they are not required to live together before
marriage. Tax and inheritance laws also differ for gay and lesbian
couples.
"Finances are not reflective of our commitment to each other,"
said Hull.
Although prerequisites under Atkinson’s proposal are still being
developed, they are likely to include at least three requirements.
The first prerequisite would be to meet the university’s definition
of a domestic partner – an unmarried partner of the same sex. Both
must be at least 18 years old and not married to anyone else.
The second prerequisite would be to sign and file with the
university an affidavit declaring that the first condition has been
met and that the partners have shared a common residence for at
least 12 consecutive months.
The third requirement would be to supply documentary proof of
mutual financial support.
Citing the potential for fraud, Johnson suggested that the
partner should also be in the UC employee’s will and share in
mortgage or mutual funds.
The adoption of the benefits would also make the children of
same-sex partners eligible for health-care benefits.
Guidelines for the use of student family housing, Atkinson said,
should also be developed to allow campus chancellors to accommodate
students living with domestic partners and blood relatives.
First priority for housing would continue to be provided to
students with children.