Faculty and staff have debated the importance and practicality of extending health care to opposite-sex domestic partners since Syracuse University released its new benefits proposal in January.

“No one thinks giving to these people is a bad thing,” said Robert Vangulick, a philosophy professor and former member of University Senate’s Budget Committee. “But it will cost a fair amount of money at a time when many employees are being asked to significantly pay more for their health benefits. Can we afford to do this? That’s what I wanted to have a discussion about.”

The administration decided to extend health care benefits to the opposite-sex partners of SU employees who are not legally married as part of the new employee benefits proposal that will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval Thursday.

Some faculty and USen committees said they are worried about the fiscal repercussions of the benefits extension. Others, including the administration, the Working Group on Sustainability and a majority of USen members, say it is an overdue extension that is financially insignificant in comparison to the overall budget.

The administration has been holding forums over the past six weeks in order to get employee feedback on the various changes and cuts the university will be making to the benefits. Several adjustments regarding retirement and dependent tuition benefits have been made in response. The changes will save the university $3 million.

In addition to extending health benefits to opposite-sex domestic partners, the proposal offers a $1,000 tax offset of federal tax to same-sex domestic partners.

Extending benefits to same-sex couples has not been contested because these couples do not have the option to get married, Vangulick said.

“But if we have to hold down health care costs and at the same time extend them to opposite-sex partners who have the option of choosing to marry, then it will completely offset the changes to the health care benefit,” Vangulick said.

Those changes include a proposal for approximately half of SU faculty to increase their health care co-payment by 14 percent, Vangulick said. At the USen meeting March 4, the administration justified the raise as necessary to pay for the rising costs of health care.

But the $600,000 in savings from the payment increase will be offset by the extension of health care to opposite-sex domestic partners, Vangulick said. The extension will cost $600,000, according to estimates by the USen’s Budget Committee.

For these same financial reasons, both the Budget Committee and the Committee for Women’s Concerns expressed reservations about providing benefits to opposite-sex domestic partners, according to their respective reports on the benefits proposal.

But many committees and members of the faculty and staff have supported the health care extension, said Kevin Quinn, vice president of public affairs, in an e-mail.

The LGBT Concerns Committee proposed the opposite-sex domestic partner benefit in 2007. That proposal has been undergoing research since it was proposed, said Thomas Keck, a member of USen’s LGBT Concerns Committee.

Based on a survey of all employees, who were asked to clarify their relationship and marital status, 437 faculty and staff could choose to participate in benefits extension to their domestic partner. Approximately a fourth of that number is graduate assistants, who would be inexpensive to cover because they are generally young, Keck said.

“Most won’t sign up,” Keck said.

The university estimated only 110 employees will sign up for the benefit when it is put into place, according to the benefits proposal report.

The $600,000 benefit cost is approximately .005 percent of the total $131 million budget, Quinn said.

In addition, offering health care to opposite-sex domestic partners has been successfully in place at 38 percent of colleges and universities nationwide, Keck said. Of 30 of SU’s peer institutions, 59 percent had this particular benefit in place, he said.

Beyond the financial argument for the program, Margaret Himley, a professor of writing and rhetoric, said marriage isn’t for everyone and these people should have equal access to the same health care as married people.

“It bumps up against social issues. As an LBGT person, I’m well aware the legal action marriage isn’t, for some people, the way to go,” Himley said. “This is about who we, as a community, are and if we’re going to function like a community and not like pockets of sameness.”

It’s not unreasonable, Himley said, that in an overhaul of benefits, for the people who are privileged in regard to benefits, to give a little bit up for those who aren’t, Himley said.

“It’s symbolic,” she said.

The degree of support the benefit has garnered from faculty and staff was enough to change the position of Doug Armstrong, a professor of anthropology.

At the March 4 USen meeting, Armstrong proposed a motion to vote on the particular benefit because he was unclear on the reason behind offering a benefit to couples who could get married.

“I heard my colleagues speak, and this is something they wanted, so I’m supporting them,” Armstrong said. “I can support people having a choice. I wouldn’t recommend it to someone, but it’s an option.”

Now that the university has chosen to incorporate the opposite-sex domestic partner benefit, Armstrong said the university needs to move forward to find more ways to keep tuition from rising without taking this away from faculty, such as rebuilding the endowment.

Ultimately, the proposal will be a part of the final benefits proposal that is presented to the board of directors, Quinn said. The proposal shows SU is a progressive institution that does not ignore the health care needs of their employees’ family members, Quinn said.

“As we saw through the past six weeks of open campus discussion, benefits are something that employees feel strongly about, and as we expected, there was a lot of pro-and-con discussion about the changes proposed,” Quinn said. “The bottom line is that through this specific proposal, we will be able to provide access to health care for an important group in our university community and also control costs moving forward.”

Published on March 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm