December 11, 1996 Minutes

Attending for UCOP

• President Richard Atkinson
• Provost Jud King
• Sr. Vice-President Wayne Kennedy
• Asst. Vice President Dennis Galligani (Student Affairs)
• Asst. Vice President Lubbe Levin (Human Resources)
• Director of Benefits, Michele French

Attending for UCLGBTA et al.

• Ron Kos--UCSF/CUCSA chair
• Marylin Dodd--UCSF/Dean,
• Nancy Stoller--UCSC/UCFW AA subcommitee/original Academic Senate domestic partner proposal
• Sigrid Hvolboll--UCSC/Staff/UCLGBTA
• Bob Anderson--UCB/UCFW/original Academic Senate domestic partner proposal
• Al Aubin--UCLA/staff/UCLGBTA
• Mark Costella--LLNL/staff/UCLGBTA
• Allison Subasic--UCD/staff/UCLGBTA
• Jonathan Winters--UCB/staff/co-chair, UCLGBTA
• Sarah Archibald--UCSD/staff/co-chair, UCLGBTA

After introductions, President Atkinson opened by saying that, though the details are still to be worked out, his office is prepared to submit a proposal recommending the extension of health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners. He anticipates bringing the proposal to the regents by their March meeting. Additionally he stated that the housing proposal which includes domestic partners would also go forward. (This policy was halted before implementation in January 1996.) He stated that it is a matter of better recruiting and retaining new faculty and staff, and of being competitive with other institutions. He said that UC is "behind the times" on this.

Sr. Vice President Kennedy added that UC needs to meet what is being offered at other institutions. He and President Atkinson stated that they are still looking into the matter of whether the President has the authority to do this unilaterally. They both said that the housing issue is within the President's purview, and the authority is there, but they weren't as sure about healthcare benefits. They were also both concerned about their approach now, as they don't want their decision overturned by the regents later.

Co-chair Winters, reps. Anderson and Stoller and others made the point that our group can help with an approach to the regents, whatever the strategy towards the regents. The UCLGBTA reps also asked why not include both same and opposite-sex couples, citing an earlier General Counsel opinion*. Kennedy stated that there is apparently a change in this, and that counsel is looking into other aspects of implementation.

(* this opinion stated that dp benefits should be inclusive, raising the concern that NOT having opposit-sex couple inclusive benefits would leave the University liable to claims of marital status discrimination.)

Kennedy stated that most institutions, municipalities and businesses have implemented same-sex only dp benefits. Bob Anderson corrected that while many universities have made their policy same-sex couples only, the majority of municipalities and businesses have inclusive (of opposite-sex couples) dp benefits. Kennedy stated that proceding in this manner--limited proposal, on President's authority--will protect the regents for taking responsibility for a vote.

On the coverage of domestic partner's children (within staff/faculty household) Lubbe Levin and Michelle French pointed out that there are limitations on eligibility for children dependent coverage. They stressed it is a complex issue that needs to be discussed further. Aside from biological children, qualifying dependents include those under legal guardianship, or declared as dependent on covered employee's tax return (there are qualifying factors here too.) Michelle French stressed that there are many scenarios, akin to step-children aside from instances of adoption; and that not all married spouse's dependent children qualify when there are children from previous marriages. Allison Subasic made the point that in her county, lesbian women couples are legally barred from adopting children, so that avenue of protection isn't even available. Chris Browning said that it will be difficult for DP couples to prove tax-dependency status. Ron Kos added that if a child of a domestic partner doesn't qualify, would they even consider allowing access to healthcare; as for the child, the bottom line is access to health. Atkinson said they'd have to consider it, and expressed a concern about getting that.

Sigrid Hvolboll had a document from the Human Rights Campaign, which had some detail about the specific types of benefits at each location. This was given to Kennedy. It was agreed that other detailed information would be provided by UCLGBTA, including examples of lost faculty recruits lost due to a lack of dp benefits. Lubbe Levin is to be the main contact who would be composing the report and proposal. Lubbe agreed that she would meet with some of us in early January to review this work. Bob Anderson, Nancy Stoller and Jonathan Winters all offered to be in that group that would meet with Lubbe.

Nancy Stoller asked about the status of the proposal for dpb's in family housing. Dennis Galligani stated that there was no change from the original proposal, and that he anticipates the policy will be implemented unilaterally. (Original proposal allowed for "families with children" to be the priority, and then lets campuses make assignment priorities; eliminates marriage license requisite.)

Bob Anderson asked about plans for retirement benefit equity; stating that while we're amenable to the narrow proposal for health benefits only, we are concerned about how greatly unfair is the discrepancy between married spouses and dp's in this area. Bob said that when an employee dies before retirement, a spouse is due 90% of a survivorship benefit--whereas a dp gets nothing.

Bob asked Kennedy if he had gotten a report on the matter from UCRS, as they had said they'd looked into the matter at the UCRS board, but would not share their written information. Bob felt that their estimate of the cost for such a benefit was up to 10x higher than the real cost would be, and believes they estimated a 12-14% cost increase to include dp's. Kennedy asked Lubbe to ask for any report from UCRS on the matter; a range of costs and a sensitivity analysis is desirable. Al Aubin believed Kennedy had been asked to obtain this material previously, but Kennedy did not remember.

Ron Kos mentioned that it's possible they are confronting homophobia when making requests of insurance carriers and other sources and said they should notify these parties that the university expects an honest and unbiased answer to the inquiries. Kennedy said he wasn't sure if it was that; just that it's not in UCOP's authority to tinker with retirement and that it is difficult to get any change from the UCRS board.

At this point President Atkinson excused himself, and the meeting with senior staff broke up. Representatives talked a bit longer and concluded their business shortly after 5pm.