April 28, 2001 Minutes

UC Santa Cruz

Attending:
Jonathan Winters, UC Berkeley
debi fidler, UC Berkeley
Bob Anderson, UC Berkeley
Shawn DeMille, UC Berkeley
Kathy Eiler, UC Irvine
John White, UC Merced
Shane Snowden, UC San Francisco
Maurice Hudson, UC Santa Barbara
Mary Watts, UC Santa Barbara
Chad Sanger, UC Santa Cruz
Deb Abbott, UC Santa Cruz
Joe Sampson, UC Santa Cruz
Robert Imada, UC Santa Cruz
Qianya Martin, UC Santa Cruz
Stuart Rosenstein, UC Santa Cruz
Dylan Garner UC Santa Cruz
Todd Bowser, UC Santa Cruz
Sarah Archibald, UC San Diego

Absent:
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
UC Davis
UC Los Angeles
UC Office of the President
UC Riverside

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. Review of Agenda: Add Boy Scouts and Financial Aid issues to Old business

III. Old Business

A. DP Student housing

Review and updates. Review of systemwide chart.

UCOP: There is a systemwide Housing Task Force being formed. That committee is about building new housing rather than policy. Until now our local approach has been via the Chancellors at each campus but the question was raised whether to participate in such a Task Force, and what to do about this now.

As an organization we can go to UCOP and advocate equity at all campuses. We will provide information to campuses about housing and housing director info on the web.

Representatives gave a summary of their local campus situation.

Berkeley: is ready to make changes. All couples will be eligible and will have access without proof of relationship. Pros and cons of proof were discussed. Students who are not in relationships may try to occupy housing vs. possible unfair burdens of proof for domestic partnerships relative to married couples. Many affidavits are difficult for some DPs to produce. Several student groups at Cal, including the ACLU group want to take the housing issue to the Regents right now with a petition. Taking to the Regents directly at this time could backfire and hurt the DP housing issue. The plan by administration is to go later with a more supportive board but the question is what do they mean by later. Can Berkeley present their petition to just to the Chancellor rather than the Regents? Is there an effective way we use this movement to make the Chancellor move faster? How public will the Chancellor be? Shane, Shawn and Jonathan volunteered to talk to the Berkeley groups.

Irvine: students have distributed a petition, a copy of which was distributed by Kathy E. This will be presented to the Chancellor and is supported by the undergraduate student government.

Santa Barbara: UCSB has become accessible to DPs since the last meeting. Families are self-defined. In a memo from the Housing Director it is stated that this new policy provides opportunities for "non-traditional families" rather than DP. Priority is for families with children first and student families without children second.

San Diego: Despite very positive response from the new Director of Housing presented at the last meeting, there is some stall in implementation and no information. DPs are currently denied housing and marriage certificates are still required for residency. Pressure through UCOP, direct protest on campus, and approaching the Chancellor were recommended.

Action items:

Shane will provide information about housing.
Chad will speak to Dennis Galligani about all campuses having equity
Shane will ask for representation or input to housing task force.

B. Gender Identity

Health Care issues:

Students: Health care and student health services. Those are administered locally and we should lobby these individually to withdraw the exclusion for trans health care.

Faculty and Staff: UCOP may include the benefits for staff in the next bid for a benefits package (this occurs every 2-4 years). Currently, trans related mental health care, surgeries etc. are an exclusion in benefits. Judy Boyette indicated OP may be ready to add mental health benefits but the surgical and hormone benefits may be more problematic. Bob Anderson offered to present the issue to the faculty welfare committee. Shane has already provided the SF information regarding costs and policy to UCOP HR.

Transgender Education to campuses.

We can ask UCOP to send trainers out. Campuses can also set up their own training.

Suggestions: Following the spring meeting Judy B. could send a letter to each HR director. On the student side Dennis Galligani could send a similar letter about training and education to each campus.

Addition of gender identity to the non-discrimination statement.

Suggestions: Get the campus Chancellor Advisory Committees to write letters to UCOP. Student groups can write letters to both UCOP and Dennis Galligani. AB1649 (gender employment discrimination) may be relevant. Letters should be addressed to Judy Boyette.

Action items: Judy Boyette may meet with some trans staff this spring and we will request that Michelle French also be present. Each campus will need to have staff/faculty reps there. Email will be sent by Chad or Shane. Campus reps will contact trans staff and faculty.

C. Campus Diversity Survey

Santa Cruz is doing the LGBT survey only, has begun this week with plans to finish within a month. They added a few questions and Sue Rankin will help analyze these. No changes at other campuses - see previous minutes.

Action item: Contact Dennis Galligani about the "other" survey to include queer issues.

D. DP Retirement Benefits

Shane talked to Judy Boyette who says DP benefits for same and opposite sex couples may go to the Regents this year. UCLGBTIA is concerned that Senior VP Joe Mullinix and President Atkinson may not be enthusiastic. We should get some letters to Atkinson now about how this inequity is affecting people.

Other issues related to retirement: CALPERS is grappling with the same issue and there is less surplus now. The state budget is relevant and could affect the choice of the broadness of the program. We hope opposite-sex benefits don't hold up same-sex benefits. Jonathan passed out the fact sheet on DP benefits developed prior.

Action Items:

Bob will update the numbers on the current DP fact sheet and post.
Kathy Eiler will circulate electronically the simpler version describing the inequities.

Bob Anderson will send his own letter and circulate this to the SCOM. Letters should go in the next 2-4 weeks.

Each campus should identify staff and faculty who could write.

E. FMLA Leave for care of DPs

DPs cannot take care of partners via FMLA. Judy is following up but it is apparently General Counsel that is concerned. A change could happen during the next year.

F. Financial aid & independent status:

For purposes of federal financial aid an applicant is not considered independent unless she/he can answer "yes" to any of the following questions on the 2001-2002 FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid):

1. Were you born before January 1, 1978? (i.e., student must be 24 years old)
2. Will you be working on a master's or doctorate program?
3. As of today, are you married? (federal definition of marriage, does not include domestic partners)
4. Do you have children who receive more than half of their support from you?
5. Do you have dependents (other than your children or spouse) who live with you and who receive more than half of their support from you, now and through June 30, 2002?
6. Are you an orphan or ward of the court or were you a ward of the court until age 18?
7. Are you a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces?

If an applicant answers "no" to all of the above questions, then she/he must provide parental income and asset information along with a parental signature on the FAFSA. Campus financial aid offices may require additional supporting documentation, such as the parental tax return.

This is problematic for queer students estranged from their parents, but is federal law and not under UC control. However, each UC campus financial aid office has a student appeal process for adverse extenuating circumstances. Documentation requirements of the estrangement and extenuating circumstances are campus specific, but generally required are letters of support from a third party such as a social worker, clergy member, high school counselor, therapist, etc. Additionally, the student must demonstrate how she/he has been supporting her/himself since the estrangement. Based upon a review of the appeal and documentation, the aid administrator may exercise "professional judgment" to declare the student independent.

The original question brought to UCLGBTIA was about the ability to treat a dp relationship equal to marriage. The problem is one of federal law so it appears the appeal process is inevitable at this time. A student wishing to be declared independent due to a domestic partnership will need to provide income and asset information for her/his domestic partner for consideration in the student's financial aid calculation. The student will also need to prove that a domicile is shared and that the couple are legally registered domestic partners. The discussion then revolved around having financial aid staff be sensitive to this issue.

Recommendation: can we have all financial aid offices consider the appeal possibility in cases of estrangement in an equitable and fair manner. Appeal forms, documentation requirements, and decision-making are at the discretion of each campus financial aid office. Note the appeal form itself is not standard and a recommendation was to get these from each campus for review and possibly raise the issue with Dennis Galligani's office also.

G. Boy scouts

A letter regarding this issue from Peter (UCSB) was brought to the meeting, but was not acted upon. A subcommittee was formed last SCOM meeting but has not yet met. Chad will get this letter to the subcommittee and it is hoped a final letter for signature will be completed by fall for our approval.

It was mentioned the film "Scouts Honor" about a gay Eagle Scout is being shown nationally on June 19th. The scout's father is a UC member and is interested in the film being widely seen. May be available for showing during the fall on campus. Contact Shane for more info.

LUNCH: Circulated campus reports and campus highlights

IV. NEW Business

A. Review of UCSB Conference

The conference ran in the black with some money left over, the final figures are pending. Total cost was around $21,000. Speakers were by far the most expensive item with 10 plenary speakers costing >$10,000. Conference producers received lots of constructive feedback from attendees, which they will pass along. Attendance was approximately 600.

B. Upcoming Conference: UC Berkeley Feb 22-24, 2002

Berkeley representatives reported that venues are reserved. Conference committee is established and meeting regularly. They applied for ASUC funding but receive only $150 so they are seeking sponsorships and other funding.

Looking into speakers, entertainment etc. Focus on graduate and faculty research going on at Cal as well as prominent bay area scholars. Request for proposals will be issued before the beginning of fall quarter/semester.

Conference committee is composed of volunteers and student chairs will be chosen. Staff and faculty are also participating. Billy Curtis is advising and will act as a liaison to administration.

Other General Conference Issues

Alcohol and other drugs. What are our concerns and liabilities?

Agreement that we should work to make our conferences as safe as possible. There could be a general waiver as part of registration as well as language about safety. Some language and options were discussed. Student safety is important and everyone must take responsibility.

Workshops, announcements from the stage, proactive things, politically relevant topics, availability of substance free events, and attempts at safe transportation to events were discussed. There was also discussion of campus vs. UCLGBTIA, direction of conference leadership and content.

C. UCLGBTIA and People of Color

This was a lengthy discussion not all recorded here. Many personal stories and feelings were shared and only some of the comments are listed here. See present members for details.

At the UCSB conference some students felt outside, or marginalized. How can we integrate rather than just add issues of color, disability etc.?

People would like to hear about different groups in the community and speakers.

Access to publication and travel needs to be considered.

Feelings of invisibility.

Issues around how events are scheduled and competing programs.

A wish for a conference more about talking to each other, more time to dialogue.

Recognize multiple identities, some felt forced to choose.

Date conflict with UCSA conference was unfortunate, unintended and difficult to rectify. One unfortunate outcome was attacking of conference planners.

Don't subsume queer issues of color. We need to be about these issues and be invested.

Some speakers were of a very conservative viewpoint or their politics weren't relevant to many queers of color.

UCSB conference committee did have people of color. The committee tried to be sensitive to and address these issues. They worked hard to be inclusive of the whole continuum.

UCLGBTIA's role: How can UCLGBTIA make itself more accessible and engaging? It's a process and dialogue and we should keep re-evaluating. A big part of the conference is social interaction. Shane suggested fall SCOM devote more time to this issue. It is a priority we can address within our organization.

We can learn from each other and need to reach out. Ideas need to be constructive and valued. We all have power to put things on the agenda. Need to restore the general assembly to a core of the conference.

V. Election of UCLGBTIA Officers

Thanks to current chair Chad Sanger for all his hard work!!!

A. Vice Chair

Vice chair nominees Chris Browning and Maurice Hudson withdrew their nominations. Remaining vice chair nominees are Robert Imada and Chad Sanger. There were no other nominations from the floor.

Vote was held with campuses present and Robert Imada was elected as new Vice Chair.

(Note the Vice chair becomes Chair next spring and a new vice chair is elected; co-chair is a two-year term. If an office becomes vacant the SCOM can elect to fill the vacancy.)

B. Secretary

Nominee and current secretary John White withdrew his nomination. Jonathan Winters was nominated and motion seconded. There were no other nominations.

Unanimous vote for Jonathan Winters as new Secretary.

C. Bylaws change

Postponed until fall

Issue: given the student time frame could we have a one year stint in leadership positions? Consider this at next meeting but note any by laws need to be proposed in the fall to be voted on at the General Assembly in February.

VI. Location of next SCOM meeting

Next steering committee meeting is at Riverside in the Fall. Possibly the 20th or 27th of October. Chad will confirm date with UCR.

Thanks to Santa Cruz for hosting!