In a public forum Tuesday at Memorial Union, UW-Madison faculty members discussed the current challenges facing a proposal to offer domestic partner insurance benefits to employees and same-sex partners.
In his budget address Feb. 13, Gov. Jim Doyle included a provision that would allow for domestic partner benefits to be offered for all state employees, including employees from state agencies and the UW System.
Currently, UW-Madison is the only Big Ten institution that does not cover domestic partners for insurance benefits. Stephen Lund, director of the Academic Personnel Office, explained that almost all of the other conference schools have full authority over their benefit programs, while UW must adhere to state statutes determined in the Wisconsin Legislature.
""All [Indiana University] had to do was convince their Board of Trustees that [domestic partner benefits] was a good idea,"" Lund said. ""Unfortunately, we are part of a state system and the state determines our benefits.""
Lund addressed the alternative of having the university provide health insurance from outside of the state system. He said the obstacle to this, besides additional cost, is passing the Joint Committee on Employment Relations in the state Legislature, which currently opposes the plan.
Don Nelson, from the UW-Madison Office of State Relations, said his office often deals with faculty leaving UW-Madison or prospective faculty not applying because of the lack of domestic partner benefits.
""We're using this provision as something that fits within our No. 1 budget priority, which is recruitment and retention of faculty members,"" he said.
Also discussed at the forum were possible implications from the recent constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions. Charles Hoornstra, director of administrative legal services at UW-Madison, explained that the marriage amendment shouldn't affect the domestic partner benefits proposal.
""One of the sponsors of the same-sex marriage amendment expressly has stated that they did not see that it was the intent of that amendment to affect an employer's ability to grant partner benefits,"" Hoornstra said.
Hoornstra added that Wisconsin courts are required to take into account what the sponsors specifically intended in the amendment, which he said was to define marriage between a single man and a single woman—not to encroach on partner benefits.
If the state legislature passes the proposed budget, including the domestic partner benefits portion, Doyle will likely sign the bill for it to become effective immediately.
""[The governor] strongly believes in this so much that he has expanded it to all state employees,"" Nelson said. ""One of our jobs is to make sure it stays on the priority list of legislators.""
Lund added, ""I've just got my fingers crossed for this session that finally, we'll break through.""
