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.