February 16, 1996 Minutes

UC Berkeley

1. Approval of Minutes

The Group revised the draft minutes from the meeting of November 4 [November 11, 2005?] (at UC-Irvine) by revising the following paragraph. At the suggestion of Al Aubin and others, the minutes were updated to indicate that the UCLGBA has been making continuing efforts to increase involvement by people of color. The new, more accurate wording is in all caps:

Several issues that might tend to limit involvement in the UCLGBA were identified:

1. the UCLGBA has focused on DP benefits recently, which tend to interest staff more than students or faculty;
2. the groups which send representatives to the UCLGBA tend to be staff, rather than student or faculty based;
3. the omission of 'transgender' in the organization's name tends to put off transgender individuals who might otherwise be interested in participating;
4. THE UCLGBA WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE IN ITS OUTREACH EFFORTS TO people of color AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL;
5. the UCLGBA administrative structure is not well known and tends not to be accessible to non-members on individual campuses;
6. meetings inevitably are a long distance from some campuses, given the size of California.

2. Listserv

UCLGBTA list server Rich Beatty raised the question of the disposition of the motive to moderate the list serve so that it contained only 'approved' announcements of system-wide significance. He was told that the decision had been to leave the list serve unmoderated, with occasional postings regarding appropriate message content.

3. Statement on Affirmative Action

The group unanimously decided to recommend to the general assembly that it vote to endorse a statement in support of affirmative action (NB: this statement is in addition that endorsed at the November Steering Committee meeting.)

4. Survey

Although some campuses had forwarded data to complete the UC-wide LGBT survey as requested in the meeting of November, others had not. The Steering Committee agreed that this survey was very important to system-wide efforts on a host of issues, and renewed its call to all campuses to complete the survey. In addition to the information requested in November, the Steering Committee is calling for data on funding for Chancellor's Advisory Committees and funding for travel to system-wide LGBT functions, such as UCLGBTA meetings.

5. Organizational Charts

As requested at the November meeting, Al Aubin provided organizational charts for the Office of the President, including those charged with human resources. In addition, he distributed information on the Regents.

6. Domestic Partner Benefits:

Jonathan raised the issue of the best means of securing endorsements of DP benefits. It was agreed that each campus would work to get these endorsements at the campus level, as well as at the system-wide level. Rich Beatty raised the question of which campuses currently offer DP insurance benefits for students. The list includes Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Davis, and Santa Barbara for graduate students. The Office of the President has indicated that this issue could be decided at the campus level. Minutes are approved.

The Steering Committee agreed that meeting with President Atkinson is critical, despite the difficulties encountered thus far. Al added that it might be desirable to pursue a meeting with Wayne Kennedy, who is actively working on retirement benefits, in addition to a session with President Atkinson. Sarah Archibald supported this notion. Bob Anderson suggested that the UCLGBTA pursue a strategy of organizing around the report of the supportive faculty committee chaired by Larry Pitts of UCSF, rather than pursuing a revision of the largely unhelpful UCOP report of May 1995.

The Steering Committee agreed that, out of respect for affirmative action, it would not endorse any action taken by Regent Ward Connerly, who is reported to be in support of DP benefits. Roland Sintos Coloma suggested that the Steering Committee identify and pursue other supportive regents. Al suggested that Ray Davis, the faculty regent, might be such a supportive person.

Chris Browning summarized the above discussion by identifying several actions items:
1. that the Steering Committee try to find support amongst strong regents;
2. that the Steering Committee avoid being aligned with Ward Connerly;
3. that the Steering Committee pursue a meeting with President Atkinson and Wayne Kennedy;
4. that the Steering Committee review the Academic Senate report on DP benefits;
5. that the Steering Committee discuss the issue of DP benefits in campus housing in an effort to determine what's available on each campus. (Al will give affidavits used on different campuses to determine eligibility for housing to Sue Dalton.);
6. that a sub-group of the Steering Committee meet the next day for further discussion of the DP benefits issue.

7. Web Site

Shih, a student at UC-Berkeley, told the Steering Committee that the UCLGBTA web site and its contents have been commandeered by a UC-Berkeley student who refuses to allow others, including Steering Committee members, access. The Steering Committee agreed that it should regain control of the Web site and its contents. It was further agreed that the campuses with Resource Centers (Riverside, Irvine and Los Angeles) would each receive a copy of all archival materials.

8. Lawful/Unlawful Discrimination

John Dixon circulated a draft of the new UCOP guideline which now omits the distinction between lawful and unlawful discrimination. The Steering Committee has pressed to have this distinction removed because it feared that anti-LGBT actions, including the denial of DP benefits, could be justified by it.

9. Thanks to UC-Berkeley

The group thanked UC-Berkeley for all the work they did in organizing the conference.

10. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Steering Committee will take place at UC-Davis on April 27. John Dixon circulated a listing of accommodations for Davis, asking that those who need assistance with their travel plans contact him soon.

Pat Walsh recommended that the Steering Committee be careful not to emphasize DP benefits issues to the exclusion of others, such as those focusing on academic and programmatic concerns, at the next meeting. She was widely supported in this recommendation.