What the Executive Committee Says on Domestic Partnership Benefits

The Senate should not take a stand on domestic partnership benefits because:

This issue "lies beyond the Senate and the University."

The Board of Trustees has the power to purchase equivalent health care insurance for same-sex domestic partners of employees. This has already been done at the University of Minnesota.

The Senate has the power to recommend this practice to the University. The Senate regularly expresses the sense of the campus on issues that the Senate has no direct control over, but which nevertheless affect the campus.

This issue should be considered in light of health care benefits in general.

There are many additional benefits that employees may want, and there may be other inequities in health benefits. This resolution addresses a specific instance of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such discrimination is prohibited by university policy.

Correcting this instance of discrimination should not be contingent on solving all problems in health benefits. We believe raising this argument is only an excuse for denying equal benefits on the basis of sexual orientation to UIC employees.

It is unclear what it will cost.

It is not unclear. The enclosed materials demonstrate the cost is minimal in comparison to health benefits in general.

How would it be determined who is eligible?

The University of Chicago and many other academic institutions have already developed administrative mechanisms for registering domestic partnerships. Generally a affidavit by two adults is filed which affirms they are in a committed partnership, are each other's sole domestic partner, share the common necessities of life, and are responsible for each other's welfare. These models would be easily adapted for use on this campus.

We urge you to vote in favor of discussion of this resolution by the full Senate and to vote in favor of the resolution.