Posted on 02/01/2006 7:09:31 AM PST by Cat loving Texan
Austinites may get to decide whether to extend health benefits to city employees' gay or straight domestic partners, 12 years after city voters rejected a similar policy.
Council Member Brewster McCracken, with the support of other council members, wants to add a proposition to the May 13 ballot that would repeal a city policy prohibiting Austin from offering such benefits. It would extend coverage to either a domestic partner or a family member living with the employee.
"This is about a principle, about correcting something that has been unfair," he said.
The issue caused an uproar in September 1993, when the council became one of the first nationwide to approve offering domestic partner benefits. A group named Concerned Texans, led by the Rev. Charles Bullock, petitioned to overturn the decision through a public vote nine months later; news reports called the 62 percent to 38 percent outcome a sharp critique of Austin's liberal bent.
Council members have not touched the topic since, partly because it has been politically risky. But recently, Proposition 2, a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that passed statewide, failed overwhelmingly in Travis County, showing that Austinites might be ready to embrace gay-friendly policies.
"People have moved further along on this issue, and this time the debate will be framed around providing health care," longtime political consultant David Butts said.
McCracken and Council Member Lee Leffingwell said they would favor a plan similar to Travis County's policy, which allows employees to add a spouse or another loved one, such as a partner, parent or sibling, to a health plan if that person lives in the same home.
The ballot proposition would amend the city charter, a document that is legally stronger than an ordinance. The proposition would repeal the city's old policy, so the council would have to approve new rules — before or after the election — defining what kind of benefits domestic partners would get.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that 10 states and several dozen municipalities offer benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. Many big companies offer such benefits, but Chuck Smith of the advocacy group Equity Texas said only two local governments offer domestic partner benefits in Texas: Travis County and the City of Dallas.
In the county program,about 70 of 3,600 employees have added someone who is not their spouse to their health plan. Four years ago, a county study found that the change amounted to less than 5 percent of the county's claims, risk and benefits manager Dan Mansour said. The program is not taxpayer-funded, he said, because the added person still must pay a monthly premium.
McCracken said he does not know how many city employees might want to sign up for domestic partner benefits or how much their premiums would be.
Studies have shown that 1 percent to 3 percent of employees who are offered domestic partner benefits take advantage of them, said Daryl Herrschaft of the Human Rights Campaign.
Austin Police Association President Mike Sheffield said the group would strongly support the charter amendment.
A majority of the City Council would have to approve putting the issue to a citywidevote. Four council members who returned calls Tuesday — McCracken, Leffingwell, Jennifer Kim and Raul Alvarez —said they would support some sort of coverage for domestic partners and others. A fifth,Mayor Will Wynn, said the issue should be put to a vote.
Leffingwell said, "The city will have better employees if they know their significant others will be cared for."
Council Member Danny Thomas, who is running for mayor against Wynn, said he would not support the proposition because Austin voters already settled the issue in 1994. A Baptist preacher who often invokes his religious values, Thomas was the only council member to support the gay marriage ban.
In 1993, the City Council approved offering full insurance benefits to unmarried partners — 98 out of 10,054 city workers, 29 of whom had same-sex partners. The benefits would have cost the city about $130,000 a year. In 1994, voters approved a proposition that limited health benefits to a city employee's immediate family, spouse or the spouse's family, defining spouse as the husband or wife of the employee.
Concerned Texans criticized the benefits as financially irresponsible and domestic partners as immoral. A group in favor of offering the benefits, the Mainstream Austin Coalition, waged a visible and better-funded campaign, arguing that the ballot proposition was not about money or morality but a quest for political power by religious conservatives.
The 1994 campaign centered on gay rights, said Glen Maxey, a Democratic political consultant, but this time, "it's not about gays and lesbians; it's about health insurance. It's about, does thecity want to offer the same kind of insurance package the county does?"
A proposition this year could enliven an already busy election season. Four council seats, including the mayor's job, are up for grabs, and the environmental group Save Our Springs Alliance is gathering signatures to put two controversial items to a public vote: amending the city charter to curb development over the Edwards Aquifer and requiring city officials to release more public records, including details on proposed tax breaks to big firms.
The environmental group's propositions and a domestic partner item could create a fierce debate and draw many new voters to the polls, political consultants say. The question is what political affiliation they would have. In 1994, the domestic partner debate contributed to the defeats of three pro-environment City Council candidates because conservative voters showed up in rarely seen numbers, political consultant Mike Blizzard said.
This year, an influx of conservative voters could bolster Thomas' underdog candidacy or hurt the chances of the Save Our Springs Alliance's ballot items.
scoppola@statesman.com; 912-2939
The proposal
•The City of Austin would offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners or family members living with them.
•There is no estimate of the cost or how many employees would participate.
•In 1994, a citywide ballot measure to prohibit the city from offering domestic partner benefits passed with 62 percent of the vote.
Berkeley-on-the-Colorado
I'll stay in the "real" part of Texas.
They can get benefits for their better halfs provided that they can prove that they have sex with them, right?
Yep, they kept Austin weird, alright. I gotta go down there for SXSW, but don't think I could live there.
Does this mean that if I live with my cousin and I work for the city, we both will be covered for benefits?
Excuse me the new state constitutional amendment in Texas banning same sex marriage also bans local jurisdictions from recognizing anything that is like a marriage.
I remember seeing T-Shirts when in Texas saying "Keep Austin Weird", maybe they should now say, "Make Austin Weirder"
I was told McCracken was the "conservative" candidate when he was running for the council. I was told the same thing about Jennifer Kim. True, they were probably more sensible than the liberal they were running against but Austin hasn't seen a real conservative on the council since the 1980s.
Exactly. What is to stop two adults from agreeing that in exchange for money, they would agree to be each others' 'domestic partners?'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.