University employees will take up the domestic partner benefits discussion again this week.
A resolution that would have extended benefits such as health-care coverage to domestic partners failed in the University Senate’s benefits committee last month.
On Thursday, Senator David Zimmer, assistant economics professor, will give his report on the overall status of the resolution at the senate’s meeting in the Faculty House at 3:45 p.m.
President Gary Ransdell said the senate will try to revisit the issue once Western settles a few contract issues involving a third-party health care administrator.
Zimmer’s report will include the vote count as well as other information regarding how the benefits committee voted.
More than 300 colleges offer benefits to domestic partners, according to the domestic partner benefits resolution.
According to the resolution, if Western doesn’t offer such benefits, the school’s overall ability to recruit and retain employees will be hindered.
The resolution states that Western’s Strategic Plan calls for implementing benefits that are competitive with similar institutions.
The Strategic Plan involves improving Western’s academic experience through strengthening students, faculty and programs.
Domestic partner benefit programs have withstood political and legal challenges at the other Kentucky institutions, according to the resolution.
The resolution was presented to the University Senate at the May 14 meeting, according to the meeting’s minutes.
At that meeting, there were 38 votes in favor of the resolution on the grounds that it’s the competitive or constitutionally-sound thing to do.
Patricia Minter was one of the 38 votes.
“I whole-heartedly support domestic partner benefits,” said Minter, associate history professor and faculty regent. “It’s the competitive thing to do nationally, and it’s very important to faculty improvement.”
Six voted against the resolution, citing reasons such as Kentucky state law doesn’t recognize domestic partners as legal spouses or citing their individual religious beliefs.
After that vote, the resolution went to the senate’s benefits committee where it didn’t pass.
Ransdell said he wants the committees to consider domestic partner benefits based on data and not allow themselves to let personal opinion or bias affect their decisions.
.
Thank you for writing this article. I enjoyed it, but I am confused about something. Are we to assume that this article is about gay/lesbian domestic partnerships? The article doesn’t specify who these benefits would apply to.
In Washington state, a domestic partner bill is being challenged that would apply to gay and lesbian couples, but also to senior citizens. Domestic partner does not mean the same thing everywhere.
Hannah,
I authored the resolution supporting domestic partner benefits that came out of SGA last semester. Our bill (and our aims) include both gay and lesbian as well as heterosexual couples. Speaking for only myself, as the author of that resolution, I will say that it definitely was intended to create a fairer opportunity for gay and lesbian employees. (Though, it’s not the perfect plan, it is the one most feasible at the moment. Kentucky has a horrid amendment, passed in 2004, that bans not only same-sex marriage but civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Until that is passed, it is hard to make substantial progress.)
Hannah,
thanks! you’re welcome. Its about gay/lesibian/etc. domestic partnerships.
Thanks for your responses