[Vision2020] Kudos to the UI Faculty Senate!

[Saundra Lund]

http://dnews.com/local/article_987a0d4a-0b3e-5826-829a-4c5e8b176fc9.html

Faculty Senate calls for partner health insurance
Proposed policy now goes to full faculty, then president

Posted: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 1:00 am | Updated: 9:45 am, Wed Apr 4,
2012. 
By Holly Bowen, Daily News staff writer

The University of Idaho Faculty Senate is recommending the UI provide health
insurance benefits to the domestic partners of its employees.

Senators approved the proposal Tuesday afternoon after a brief discussion
about its wording, but no faculty member in attendance expressed
disagreement with the policy's intent - to treat employee spouses and
partners equitably.

"It's time for the University of Idaho to take leadership on this issue,"
said Don Crowley, the UI's political science department chairman.

The Idaho Constitution defines a heterosexual marriage as the only valid
legal union in the state, but Idaho courts have yet to interpret that law as
it relates to the U.S. Constitution.

"If the Idaho Constitution is interpreted as prohibiting us from (providing
partner benefits), then the Idaho Constitution probably is in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment," Crowley said.

The last time the Faculty Senate tried to extend benefits to domestic
partners was in 2010, when it endorsed providing job-placement assistance to
the domestic partners as well as spouses of employees. UI President Duane
Nellis rejected the policy as worded, not because he disagreed with its
intent, but because the partner language could have put the university at
legal risk.

Professors on the partner benefits committee believe three federal court
cases decided since then would give legitimacy to the partner language.
However, the proposal approved by the senate on Tuesday only deals with
health insurance, and not job-placement assistance or any other benefits.

Kathy Aiken, dean of the UI's College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences,
said the senate's role is to do what's right, even if it provokes a
challenge in the courts.

"(Nellis) did the wrong thing last time, and we're asking him this time to
do the right thing," she said, adding that the courts can't interpret the
constitutionality of the policy unless someone actually implements it first.

Jack Miller, a law professor and another former Faculty Senate chairman on
the partner benefits committee, said when the university's health insurance
policy was originally developed years ago, a morality judgment was made
against the unmarried domestic partners of employees.

"The decision to not provide such benefits to domestic partners is clearly a
decision to disfavor those persons," he said.

But Miller questioned whether that moral judgment is a valid criterion for
denying partner benefits, as far as the law is concerned.

The court cases the partner benefits committee cited, Diaz v. Brewer, Perry
v. Brown and Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, all indicate
legal justification for equitable rights and benefits for same-sex
Americans.

Before approving the proposed policy on Tuesday, senators learned that both
the university Faculty Affairs and Staff Affairs committees are in support
of extending health insurance to the domestic partners of employees.

The policy will be considered by the full faculty body April 24, and if it
is approved there, it will go to Nellis for his consideration.