From The Diamondback

University of Maryland may pay for partner benefits

by Eric Shaffer

Friday, November 17, 2006

The university may decide to fund benefits for gay and lesbian employees' domestic partners with the university's budget to improve the likelihood of passing the policy, which has been delayed far too long, some administrators said.

A university group that has been researching the most feasible option for funding the program recently began discussing the option of paying for it through the university. By using university funds, the program has a better chance of moving forward despite the criticism it historically received at both the state and system level, administrators said.

"I don't think it is a fiscal issue as much at it is a moral issue," said University System of Maryland Chancellor Brit Kirwan. "There are people on the General Assembly and a broad section of our population that feel that it is inappropriate to allow equal benefits."

Even if the university finances the program, the action must be passed by the Board of Regents, which may be difficult, Kirwan said.

Though the University Senate managed to pass a proposal to extend benefits to domestic partners in 1994, the regents rejected it in July 1996, saying no individual campus has the option of extending local benefits to domestic partners.

The 1994 senate proposal also came with a recommendation that the proposal become a statewide policy for university system -- an option some said is more likely under Gov.-elect Martin O'Malley.

"When a new administration comes in that is for [benefits for domestic partners], now is the time to put your best hand forward," said Luke Jensen, director of the university's Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equity.

Equality Maryland, an LGBT rights advocacy group, endorsed O'Malley over Gov. Robert Ehrlich because of O'Malley's support for gay rights and partly due to Ehrlich's opposition to the same-sex partner's benefits program. But the moral issues attached to the proposal often cause problems at the state level.

"The problem with creating a statewide policy is that the issue is so complex for people because it takes on religious and moral issues," said Laura Nichols, co-author of a 2005 report from the Center for Leadership and Organizational Change.

The report recommended the university administration create a task force to garner support for the benefits both at the system and state level.

In response, university President Dan Mote took up the issue again, instructing John Porcari, vice president of administrative affairs, to set up a group to determine how best to fund the program.

"President Mote and I are for benefits for domestic partners, and I think it's been long overdue for a change in policy," Provost Bill Destler said.

Porcari did not return calls for comment.

The University Senate is proposing a Plus-One policy later this month, which would allow a guest to have campus privileges such as library and gym access. But Jensen said he does not think that is enough.

"Frankly I think that policy is a bad precedent for domestic benefits because it is not specific for spouses and partners," said Jensen. "Your Aunt Harriet can get these benefits."

Despite the hurdles ahead, Kirwan said he was confident the policy would come into existence eventually.

When Kirwan was president at Ohio State, he advocated that faculty and staff be able to purchase dependent life insurance and GlobalCare international travel medical protection for domestic partners, but faced opposition from local government. It was later passed in the University Senate in May 2002.

"I think if you look at other universities changing their policy, I do think that over time it will be implanted and the trend is clear," Kirwan said. "It's not a matter of how but when."