More About NU’s ‘Plus One’ Benefits Decision

Details: 20 July 2012

Some thoughts still linger about the University of Nebraska Board of Regents’ 5-3 vote June 8 that authorizes treating cohabiting domestic partners of university employees the same as the husbands and wives of married employees, for purposes of eligibility for employment-based benefits—most notably medical and dental insurance.

The benefits-extension was described for the Regents by the NU administration last December. Then the matter was quieted while the State Legislature was in session and making decisions about the university’s requests for funding for three major projects. That accomplishment secured, and the Primary Election out of the way, the matter popped back up with a week’s public notice.

The new coverage options have been given the labels "Employee-Plus-One" and "Employee-Plus-One-and-Family" (to include the children of the added one). The "One" of "Plus One" is identified as the employee’s "Adult Designee."

As with the current plan’s election of spousal and family coverage, the employee will be responsible for about 16 percent of the premium cost, with the University paying the balance. The University’s total cost of adding up to 200 of these coverage-elections is projected to be between $750,000 and $1.5 million a year.

To be eligible for the extension of benefits: the "Adult Designee," whether of the same or opposite gender as the employee, must be at least 18 years of age; must not be the employee’s spouse (obviously); must have resided in the same domicile with the employee for at least the consecutive 12 months prior to the election of coverage and intend to remain so domiciled indefinitely; and must be "directly dependent upon, or interdependent with, the employee, sharing a common financial obligation."

By using "Adult Designee," the university’s top administrators, who vigorously and enthusiastically pursued authorization for the Plus-One benefits, coyly avoid the terms "partner" and "domestic partner." No doubt this is because of the second sentence of article. 1, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution. It prohibits governmental recognition of any "uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship."

The definitional and pre-conditional requirements for being an "Adult Designee," as applied when that individual is the same gender as the employee, suggest a same-sex relationship that, if it isn’t a "domestic partnership" per se, is, at a minimum, similar to one, making the state university’s recognition of it at least constitutionally suspect.

Significantly, the definition of "Adult Designee" also prescribes those who are excluded from being one—most notably blood relatives. This exclusion exposes unfairness in the plan; it also exposes the pretext of recognizing same-sex relationships.

The University’s administration invested in a legal opinion from a law firm. Here’s its conclusion, released just a week before the vote: "Although there is no binding Nebraska precedents and arguments could be made on both sides of this issue, it is our opinion that the Plus One Plan does not violate the Nebraska Marriage Amendment."

Not a single Regent probed that opinion in any manner, at least on the record.

Even more inexplicable, the Nebraska Attorney General apparently prefers to ignore any issue of the Plus-One plan’s constitutionality. Way back in mid-February, a state legislator requested an Attorney General’s Opinion on the issues. Apparently, there has been no attempt to fulfill that legitimate request.

Before the roll-call vote was taken, seven of the eight Regents—all but Chuck Hassebrook—made statements about the "Plus One" proposal and reasons for their votes.

The most puzzling, if not disingenuous, statement was that of Regent Kent Schroeder of Kearney.

He pointed out flaws and weaknesses in the justifications offered for the proposal. He challenged virtually all of the evidence the administration had presented in support of its assertion that partner benefits are needed for recruitment and retention of quality faculty; that evidence sits on thin ice, he said. He pointed out that the proposal actually exacerbates inequality and discrimination because costs will dictate that some unmarried employees will pay disproportionately for single coverage, which could lead to a future decision to limit all eligibility to employees only. He said he didn’t care about what Fortune-500 companies do about extended benefits, because they pass the costs on to consumers. He mentioned that 90 percent of his contacts from constituents urged him to vote against the proposal.

Then, having said all that, he announced he would vote "yes," for two reasons: his admiration for NU President J.B. Milliken and for UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman.

Just before the Board’s chairman, Regent Jim McClurg of Lincoln, made his statement and called for the vote, he recognized Chancellor Perlman to speak. The Chancellor’s remarks were brief. He closed by telling the Regents that it would be "infinitely harder to manage this university if you don’t vote in favor of this."

"Infinitely harder"? Really? Not just harder, or somewhat harder or a lot harder, but "infinitely" harder? Beyond-comprehension harder? Goodness. What an over-the-top admonition. But perhaps Chancellor Perlman still wasn’t quite sure at that point which way a vote was headed.

Regent McClurg, unsurprisingly, gave the most enthusiastic statement of support for granting the authorization. This is what great universities do, he said, adding his opinion that in 10 or 15 years, they would look back and be glad they did it.

Perhaps that will be so; as far as the University’s institutional self-interest is concerned, involving its reputation among its Big-10-Conference peers.

Or perhaps by then the policy will have been judicially nullified because in part it violates the Nebraska Constitution. Or perhaps it will have led to a subsequent change: limiting benefits to employees only. Or perhaps by undermining the fundamental meaning and value of marriage, this policy will have taught bad lessons, negatively impacted the common good and contributed to a greater cultural crisis.