1. Introduction

The LGBT Issues Task Force asserts that offering domestic partner benefits is a mark of excellence that is especially appropriate for academic organizations which depend on cooperation and goodwill, and which declare diversity as a defining characteristic. The LGBT component of our academic communities is an aspect of diversity in itself and a microcosm of all other forms of diversity. We need these benefits. As the Board of Regents reconsiders offering domestic partner benefits, we urge them forward by building on the substantial work completed in 1996 and by focusing on the positive experiences of others in the intervening five years.

2. Summary of Reasons Both For and Against Domestic Partner Benefits

In the 1996 public hearings and written testimony, the Regents heard from nearly 250 employees with about 60% in favor and 40% opposed. The reasons both for and against are summarized below.1 The advocates' testimonies fall into two broad categories: Fairness and Equity, and Best Business Practices.

Fairness and Equity

Equal pay for equal work. Up to 40% of one's compensation comes in the form of benefits. Workers doing the same job should receive the same compensation.

Bring practice in line with our espoused values. We say that we value diversity. Offering domestic partner benefits would bring our practice in this area in line with our statements by compensating more equitably employees in similar living arrangements.

Value of diversity for everyone. Domestic partner benefits give tangible support to diversity especially for LGBT employees. Everyone profits from a more diverse environment.

Role models. Supporting our LGBT staff and faculty encourages visible LGBT role models which are needed by both LGBT and heterosexual students.

An American issues of fairness. Our founding documents are imbued with the spirit of fairness. Domestic partner benefits build on that foundation by stressing our commonality.

Best Business Practices

A mainstream business practice. Led by high tech and computer companies, nearly one quarter of Fortune 500 companies (122 of the 500) currently offer domestic partner benefits. Others include numerous smaller companies, non-profit organizations, unions, and six state and many local governments.2

Recruit and retain top talent. The number one reason given by employers to offer these benefits is the ability to recruit and retain the best talent.

Increased productivity. Employees in domestic partnerships become more productive and loyal because the financial pressures on their households are relieved to the same degree as other employees, and because their employers recognize, value, and support them.

Welcoming atmosphere for all. The positive effects radiate beyond those who receive these benefits by creating a welcoming atmosphere for all students, staff and faculty.

Responses to Common Arguments Against Offering Domestic Partner Benefits

Potential for fraud. Legally binding affidavits and stigma associated with declaring one's domestic partnership are strong disincentives for fraudulently applying for these benefits.

Backlash. With a governor who actively pushed legislation adding sexual orientation to non-discrimination laws and a legislature that passed his legislation by wide margins, any opposition from Annapolis will likely be transitory with little or no impact.

Moral issues. This opposition is grounded in specific religious traditions. Clergy in favor of domestic partner benefits could also be marshaled. Public sector employers are constitutionally prohibited from promoting particular religious viewpoints and should not coerce adherence to living arrangements dictated by particular religions.

Legal definitions. Some insist a state agency should provide benefits only for relationships defined by state law. With six states, many local governments, and numerous public universities giving domestic partner benefits, experience has proven this argument to be specious.

3. Costs

With a decade of experience, employers have found the costs of adding domestic partners to health insurance to be remarkably predictable. We believe that the same formulas can be applied to Tuition Remission which is the only other item under consideration associated with an easily calculated cost. The key elements are the increase in enrollment and the cost for those particular enrollees.3 For enrollment, "Evidence from existing plans shows that enrollment rises very little, usually 1% or less and almost always less than 2%." And for costs, "the likely cost increase will be roughly the same size as the increase in enrollment, or around 1% in most cases."4

Savings in costs associated with recruitment and retention may offset part or even all of the relatively modest costs associated with adding domestic partners to benefit plans.

4. Comparisons to Institutions in the Region and Peer Institutions

Region

Fourteen institutions of higher learning in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the four surrounding states can be identified as offering domestic partner benefits. They range from community colleges to American University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Pennsylvania.6

Peers

Of the 97 peers of USM institutions, 28 or nearly 29% offer full domestic partner benefits. At least seven more offer partial benefits bringing the total to over 36%. See the endnotes for greater detail.7

5. What We Lost by Failing to Grant Domestic Partner Benefits in 1996

A 1997 study found that the full cost of hiring a typical employee is $3,310 and $6,359 for an exempt employee;8 and a 1995 study estimated that the typical private employer spends $305 per worker on training, meaning that over a ten-year period there would be more than $3,000 invested in a typical employee.9 Today's costs are surely higher. Although it is impossible to calculate precise figures, a relatively small number of failed searches and the loss of a few long-term employees due to our lack of domestic partner benefits produces a net loss within the System.

We know that other institutions have attempted to cherry pick some of our top talent with the offer of domestic partner benefits. We also know of at least one instance where our institution had to respond to such an offer with additional resources to offset the presence of benefits at the competing institution. Additionally, the high degree of activity of our LGBT staff and faculty declined significantly following the Board of Regents vote in 1996 indicating a severe drop in productivity.

We urge the Regents to provide domestic partner benefits now. It is a cost effective method of becoming more competitive, and it is the equitable and fair thing to do. The compelling testimony offered previously could be duplicated once again with a different group of individuals telling equally moving personal stories. We urge the Regents to move forward without going through such an exercise; but if necessary, we will bring our highly personal stories to light once again to secure more equitable compensation.

Notes

1. The rationales closely mirror those outlined by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign. See Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits (New York, NY: The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1999) available online at http://www.ngltf.org/library/index.cfm; and WorkNet: How to Achieve Domestic Partner Benefits in Your Workplace (Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign, n.d.) available at http://www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/dptool.pdf; accessed May 17, 2001.

2. The six states are California, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. In Maryland, local governments include the cities of Baltimore and Takoma Park, and Montgomery County.

3. Estimates are for a plan including both same-sex and other-sex couples. Costs for same-sex couples only plans are significantly lower. For the purpose of this report, we have included both which reflects the proposal considered previously by the Board of Regents.

4. M. V. Lee Badgett, “Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic Partners” in Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies 5:1 (November 2000): 1-8. Available online at http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_51.pdf.

5. We have conflated all domestic partner benefit plans that include health insurance. About 65% cover both same-sex and other-sex couples with the remaining 35% covering only same-sex couples.

6. The following information was culled from data available on the web site of the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/). Their list is not complete and there may be additional colleges and universities which should be included. We are, however, confident that the following institutions in the geographic region indeed offer domestic partner benefits including health insurance. We define the region as the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. American University (DC), Beaver College (PA), Bucknell University (PA), Carnegie Mellon University (PA), Community College of Philadelphia (PA), Dickinson College (PA), Franklin & Marshall College (PA), Johns Hopkins University (MD), Maryland College of Art and Design (MD), Muhlenberg College (PA), Susquehanna University (PA), Swarthmore College (PA), Thomas Jefferson University & Hospital (PA), and University of Pennsylvania (PA).

7. Peer institutions are those on file at USM headquarters as of 1999. Most information comes from the Human Rights Campaign; however, we know that their information is incomplete. For example, they fail to list Central Washington University which began offering domestic partner benefits including health insurance to same-sex couples beginning on January 1, 2001; nor do they include Western Oregon University which began offering health and dental insurance along with other benefits to both same-sex and other-sex domestic partners on June 1, 1998. Also, they do not include any institution that offers domestic partner benefits unless health insurance is included. Therefore, additional institutions should possibly have a “yes” or a partial designation but do not.

From the lists of peers, it appears that two factors have a disproportionate influence on whether an institution offers domestic partner benefits: administration and geography. Of the 28 institutions offering full domestic partner benefits, 24 belong to a university system. Six of the seven offering partial benefits belong to a system. Systems with institutions that appear at least twice amongst our peers are given in the following table. They are in order of most to least appearances with the specific number in parentheses immediately following the name.

With the exception of the State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania and Indiana University, all systems offering no domestic partner benefits are located in the southern United States. The two that offer partial benefits, the Universities of Illinois and Massachusetts, have extended all benefits under their control but cannot include health benefits without action from their respective state legislatures. Illinois offers all so-called soft domestic partner benefits such as family and bereavement leave. Tuition remission is not available to spouses or dependents of any employee of the University of Illinois. Massachusetts offers all soft domestic partner benefits and tuition remission.

The following lists each USM institution, its peers, and whether that peer offers domestic partner benefits.

Bowie State University

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
Auburn University, Montgomery, AL	No
Augusta State University, GA University System of Georgia	No
Columbus State University, GA University System of Georgia	No
Indiana University Northwest, IN Indiana University	No
New Jersey City University, NJ	No
Western New Mexico University, NM	No
Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, PA State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania	No
Prairie View A&M University, TX Texas A&M University System	No
Sul Ross State University, TX Texas State University System	No
Virginia State University, VA	No

Coppin State College

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
Alabama State University, AL	No
Columbus State University, GA University System of Georgia	No
Fort Valley State University, GA University System of Georgia	No
Alcorn State University, MS	No
University of North Carolina, Pembroke, NC University of North Carolina	No
New Jersey City University, NJ	No
New Mexico Highlands University, NM	No
Western New Mexico University, NM	No
Sul Ross State University, TX	No
Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX Texas A&M University System	No

Frostburg State University

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
Sonoma State University, CA California State University System	Yes
Western Connecticut State University, CT Connecticut State University System	Yes
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA University of Massachusetts	Yes
SUNY College at Oneonta, NY State University of New York	Yes
SUNY College at Plattsburgh, NY State University of New York	Yes
SUNY College at Potsdam, NY State University of New York	Yes
California University of Pennsylvania, PA State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania	No
Clarion University of Pennsylvania, PA State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania	No
East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, PA State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania	No
Winthrop University, SC	No

Salisbury State University

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
Sonoma State University, CA California State University System	Yes
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA University of Massachusetts	All but health insurance
Southeast Missouri State University, MO	No
University of North Carolina, Wilmington, NC University of North Carolina	No
Western Carolina University, NC University of North Carolina	No
SUNY College at Oswego, NY State University of New York	Yes
SUNY College at Plattsburgh, NY State University of New York	Yes
Western Oregon University, OR	Yes
Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, PA State System of Higher Education of Pennsylvania	No
Central Washington University, WA	Yes

Towson University

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
California State University, Fresno, CA California State University System	Yes
California State University, Northridge, CA California State University System	Yes
California State University, Sacramento, CA California State University System	Yes
Western Illinois University, IL	All but health insurance
Western Kentucky University, KY	No
East Carolina University, NC University of North Carolina	No
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC University of North Carolina	No
University of North Carolina, Wilmington, NC University of North Carolina	No
Montclair State University, NJ	No
Southwest Texas State University, TX Texas State University System	No

University of Baltimore

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR	No
California State University, Bakersfield, CA California State University System	Yes
Governors State University, IL	No
University of Illinois, Springfield, IL University of Illinois	All but health insurance
Indiana University Northwest, IN Indiana University	No
New Jersey City University, NJ	No
Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, Capital College, PA Pennsylvania State University	No
University of Houston, Clear Lake, TX University of Houston System	No
Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX Texas A&M University System	No
University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, WI University of Wisconsin System	No

University of Maryland, Baltimore

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL University of Alabama System	No
University of California, San Francisco, CA University of California System	Yes
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL University of Illinois	All but health insurance
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI	Yes
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina	No

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
University of Arkansas, Main, AR	No
University of California, Riverside, CA University of California System	Yes
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA University of California System	Yes
University of Delaware, DE	No
Mississippi State University, MS	No
SUNY Albany, NY State University of New York	Yes
Oklahoma State University, Main, OK	No
University of Rhode Island, RI	No
Clemson University, SC	No
University of Wyoming, WY	No

University of Maryland, College Park

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
University of California, Berkeley, CA University of California System	Yes
University of California, Los Angeles, CA University of California System	Yes
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL University of Illinois	All but health insurance
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI	Yes
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC University of North Carolina	No

University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
Fort Valley State University, GA	No
Alcorn State University, MS	No
University of North Carolina, Pembroke, NC University of North Carolina	No
Eastern New Mexico University, Main, NM	No
Western New Mexico University, NM	No
Lincoln University, PA	No
Kentucky State University, KY	No

University of Maryland University College

Name of peer	Domestic partner benefits
University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR	No
California State University, Dominguez Hill, CA California State University System	Yes
Central Connecticut State University, CT Connecticut State University System	Yes
University of North Florida, FL	No
Governor’s State University, IL	No
University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA University of Massachusetts	All but health insurance
CUNY Bernard Baruch College, NY City University of New York	Yes
CUNY Herbert H. Lehman College, NY City University of New York	Yes
CUNY Hunter College, NY City University of New York	Yes
CUNY Queens College, NY City University of New York	Yes

8. Ruth E. Thaler-Carter, “EMA Model Defines Cost-Per-Hire as Part of Staffing Performance,” HR Magazine, December 1997, as quoted in Badgett, p. 6.

9. “1995 Survey of Employer-Provided Training-Employer Results,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, July 1996, as quoted by Badgett, p. 6.