Dear UICGLB-L Member,

Your help is greatly needed. The Campus Senate is going to hear a report from the Faculty Affairs Committee which may kill the chances for same-sex domestic partnership benefits at UIC anytime soon. We want the University to separately purchase health insurance for domestic partners. Each and every Senator should be personally lobbied before the next Senate meeting. Please help!

Following is a packet of information on the domestic partnership resolution which was sent to all UIC Senators on Friday. They should receive it by Wed. Please contact and lobby as many Senators as you can. The Full UIC Campus Senate meeting is Tuesday, April 25 at 3:15 in Room C of the West-side union. Let Dave Barnett (6-3490) know which Senators you contact and whether or not the Senator is sympathetic to our issue. Contact Dave Barnett for more information on how to lobby. Script for lobbying sent separately by E-mail.

Send this message on to others on campus who might help but who are not subscribed to UICGLB-L.

Curt Winkle Co-Chair,

Chancellors Committee on the Status of

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues

__________________________________________________________________________

Memorandum

DATE: April 14, 1995

TO: UIC Senators

FROM: Curt Winkle and Jo Campbell, Co-Chairs, Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues

RE: Background Materials for Next Senate Meeting

Attached are background materials for the next Senate meeting. Materials include the following:

• Myths about health benefits for same-sex domestic partners
• The draft resolution on same-sex domestic partnership benefits
• A brief history of the issue at UIC
• An article from ACADEME entitled "Equal Pay for Equal Families" [Not on E-Mail]

Please call Curt Winkle (6-2155), John Albanese (6-1226) or Dave Barnett (6-3490) if you have any questions.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Myths About Health Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners

Myth 1: This issue to too radical for UIC.

• Many universities with which we compete for faculty and students already provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits.
  
• "By the end of this year, every Ivy League university will provide domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners." (See enclosed article "Equal Pay for Equal Families.")
  
• Many public universities provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits including University of Minnesota , University of Iowa, Iowa State, San Jose State, Central Michigan University, Central Missouri State, Central State University (Ohio), University of Vermont, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and University of Colorado.

Myth 2: Everyone will try to take advantage of this.

• · Other universities generally require a signed statement by two adults 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.
  
• · Some institutions require evidence of the following:
  
  • cohabitation,
  • shared debts and assets,
  • shared bank accounts, or
  • naming the partner a beneficiary
    

Myth 3: The cost will be too high.

• Documentation shows that the cost is minimal in comparison to health benefits in general.
  
• One study of 15 employers found that the number of people enroled for health benefit coverage increased b 0.3 percent. (See enclosed "Equal Pay for Equal Families.")
  
• No employers have traced higher rates to adverse selection of beneficiaries due to HIV infection in gay men. (See enclosed "Equal Pay for Equal Families.") Gay men will not require health services for pregnancy.
  
• University of Minnesota has between 30 and 40 people who have applied for same-sex domestic partner health benefits.
  
• A report by the UIC benefits office reports that, at the University of Minnesota, it is " their sense is that [costs] are not greater to date than regular dependent coverage."

Myth 4: This issue can not be addressed unless all other health-benefits problems are solved.

• 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.

Myth 5: 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 and other institutions.

Myth 6: The State created the problem. We should wait for the State to fix it.

• The University, not the State, has a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Benefits provided to University employees are not in compliance with this policy. Correcting discrimination is our problem.

We urge you work toward nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,

in accordance with University policy.

Distributed by the Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues

___________________________________________________________________________________

Obstruction or Promotion of Nondiscrimination at UIC

or

Why are you hearing about the domestic partnership

resolution in this unconventional way?

The process starts:

· A two-year consultation with the Chancellor and health-benefits administration led to the development of a position paper on domestic partnership benefits at UIC by the Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Biseuxal Issues.

· In fall of 1994, a resolution requesting the Board of Trustees to provide equal benefits to lesbian and gay employees in committed same-sex relationships was submitted to the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Campus Senate.

· THE FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE APPROVED THE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP RESOLUTION

The process is interrupted:

The Executive Committee prevented the resolution from going to the full senate for Consideration and the resolution was not placed on the agenda.

The process is resumed:

· The resolution was introduced at the last full Senate meeting from the floor under new business and sent directly to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Committee was asked to make a report on the resolution to the full Senate.

The process is obstructed. The full Senate is circumvented from discussing the issue.

· Members of the Chancellor's Committee requested to attend the next Senate Executive Committee meeting and were told they would not be allowed to be present.

· The Senate Executive Committee sent a memo to Faculty Affairs Committee suggesting this issue "lies beyond the Senate and the University." In fact, the Board of Trustees does have the power to provide benefits and the Senate has the power to make the recommendtion to the Board.

· A co-chair of the Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues offered to attend the Faculty Affairs Committee meeting but was not invited.

· The three members present at the last Faculty Affairs Committee meeting decided to take the advice of the Senate Executive Committee and recommended that the issue be sent to the State of Illinois Central Management Systems rather than to request action by the Board of Trustees. This action is equivllent to the University turning its back on gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty, students and staff, thus sanctioning discrimination in violation of its own policy.

What happens at the next meeting of the Senate is up to you.

Distributed by the Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues

_________________________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION OF THE CAMPUS SENATE

ON SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS

Whereas the University of Illinois has a non-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and,

Whereas same-sex domestic partners in exclusive and enduring relationships are not allowed to marry and,

Whereas the University of Illinois systematically discriminates against employees who have same-sex domestic partners by not providing spousal benefits to those partners and,

Whereas other public and private universities, including the University of Iowa, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Chicago, now provide health benefits to same-sex domestic partners and,

Whereas statistics show that the cost to institutions providing these benefits is minimal,

We urge the University of Illinois to comply with its own non-discrimination policy by extending to same-sex partners of its employees all benefits now extended to married partners of employees and,

We urge the Board of Trustees to implement immediately those solutions within its powers to rectify this inequity and to seek permanent remedy in any state directives that limit equity in same-sex partner benefits.