Tag Archives: domestic partner benefits

My Big Idea for the New Mayor as Published in the Post-Gazette

I was recently asked to contribute to a compendium piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on “big ideas” for the next Mayor of Pittsburgh. Other contributors include economist Chris Briem, Cheryl Hall-Russell from Hill House Assocation, Jon Rubin from CMU and Leah Lizarondo of “The Brazen Kitchen” blog and more!

Image: Daniel Marsula, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Here’s what I submitted:

Emphasize equality

Sue Kerr, editor, Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents

Address LGBTQ equality with standout reforms that protect everyone and create an inclusive workplace culture to attract new business development — reforms similar to those in Philadelphia and those found in the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index. These would include:

1) A tax credit to companies that provide domestic partner health insurance coverage. 2) A tax offset on city employees’ domestic partner health insurance which is currently counted as pre-tax income, unlike family coverage for married employees. 3) Reduced barriers for low-income LGBTQ families to join the domestic partner registry. 4) Gender-neutral bathrooms required for new construction or renovation of city facilities. 5) A new office of LGBTQ or diversity affairs. 6) LGBTQ community members recruited for public safety roles as well as board and council appointments.

The focus is on creating opportunity, not solely preventing discrimination or responding to discriminatory treatment.

These are not new-to-me ideas. I’ve come across a few in various articles, reports and white papers on municipal policy. While it is good to have local support for issues such as marriage equality, it is equally important to educate our municipal electeds about the many ways in which they can actually create a more equal society, not just support one.

In November 2013, the Human Rights Campaign will issue a follow-up “Municipal Equality Index” report which will not only include the three more densel LGBTQ populated regions in the state, but also the largest cities. So while Pittsburgh is *not* among the former, it should be part of the equation in 2013. That’s clearly too soon for the new Mayor to have an impact (he won’t even be the Mayor!) but it will set a clear benchmark for him – a chance to look critically at our equality issues as they are defined in 2013, not 1999.

We’ve reached a point where measuring a candidate’s stance on domestic partner benefits, non-discrimination laws and marriage equality are not sufficient for the local level. I was a little shocked to realize that Pittsburgh’s LGBTQ population was not large enough to include us in the 2012 edition of the index – we’ve lost LGBTQ residents. Nonetheless, we’ll now have something to start from and November allows both Steel City Stonewall and the Gertrude Stein Club ample time to revisit their candidate questionnaires for the primary in 2014.

Please share this content.

Buffer

Share on Tumblr

Luzerne County, PA Establishes Mandatory Domestic Partner Registry for Employees

This bit from Think Progress struck me as odd.

County in northeast Pennsylvania has instituted a new policy requiring the same-sex domestic partners of county employees to identify themselves, even though they will still not be permitted to collect benefits. The reason for the policy is to ensure that anti-nepotism prohibitions and restrictions are applied to domestic partners.

What? I confirmed this with Equality PA – the County has established a registry for employees to document their domestic partnerships. Luzerne County also has a non-discrimination ordinance in place which includes sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

It is important to note that this registry does not apply to heterosexual employees in domestic partnerships. It is also unclear how exactly the County tracks married employees if they don’t enroll in the health plan.

The ACLU noticed this, too.

“I am not assuming the intent is bad, but the way it is being implemented doesn’t make any sense,” said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU attorney from Philadelphia. “If the purpose is to prevent nepotism and conflicts of interest, then the government has an interest in this disclosure. There is a balance against the privacy interest.”

But the county should define domestic partners “in an even-handed manner” for both gay and heterosexual employees, Roper said.

I assume the intent is bad. The first thing that came to mind was mandatory registration under Hitler. It did. I could not see a single constructive benefit to this decision with the possible exception of some back door attempt to add domestic partner benefits.

Like this …

John Dawe, executive director of the gay-rights group NEPA Rainbow Alliance in Wilkes-Barre, applauded council for recognizing same-sex partners in the new code.

“We now ask that county council adopt an ordinance to allow county employees, at their own expense, to add their domestic partners to their health insurance,” Dawe said. “After all, recognizing equal treatment for all isn’t only solid policy, it’s the right thing to do.”

Hmmm. I certainly agree that domestic partner benefits – beyond health insurance – are the right thing for everyone. I just fail to see how compelling employees to out themselves to avoid nepotism is effective or reasonable? How much gay nepotism could there be in Luzerne County?

Luzerne County in pink

Sometimes being optimistic requires a bit more information. I can’t imagine registering as a same sex household with the County solely to comply with nepotism policies. Where’s the incentive to offset the potential discrimination and harassment you might experience?

And frankly – how it can even be nepotism if the County doesn’t recognize domestic partnerships? I hear this come up quite often when it comes to public assistance programs, like SNAP formerly known as food stamps. The federal government funds SNAP and they do not recognize same sex couples so why should a partner’s income be considered when it comes to a federal program? Often it is not because SNAP considers domestic partners to be roommates with individualized expenses. That’s fine with me.

I’m very skeptical that a “registry” for LGBTQ employees is a good or useful idea. However, if someone wants to persuade me that this will be a benefit to Luzerne County employees and LGBTQ residents, I’m open to the dialogue.

Please share this content.

Buffer

Share on Tumblr

Breaking: PA School District Approves Domestic Partner Benefits for Employees

In an era of intense scrutiny of the public school systems in Pennsylvania, it is heartening to see that the belt tightening necessitated by the Corbett Administration’s gutting of public education funding does not stop school districts from treating their employees fairly. This press release from Equality PA proves that the tide is in favor of equality and continues to sweep across the state, bit by bit even as statewide lawmakers hysterically predict the end of days in an equal secular society.

The City of Pittsburgh Public Schools offer domestic partner benefits. While the recent round of layoffs is maddening, it is good to see that the principles of equality and fairness did not get laid upon the chopping block.

Bethlehem Area School District (BASD) Approves Same-Sex Partner Benefits

Last night, during a public meeting, Bethlehem Area School Board Member Basilio Bonilla announced that the district would begin offering domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners of school district employees. The announcement regarded an administrative change by Superintendent Dr. Joseph Roy.

Equality Pennsylvania’s President, Adrian Shanker, was at the board meeting to provide testimony in support of the change. Shanker testified, “this policy is really about one thing: Equal pay for equal work. This school district has dozens of employees with same-sex spouses who are unable to legally marry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These teachers, janitors, administrators, and other staff members work hard to educate our community’s students and to create a safe and healthy learning environment for all kids. They deserve to be treated with equality by this school district regardless of whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania treats them with equality.” Shanker previously led the successful effort to win partner benefits for municipal employees in the Cities of Allentown and Easton.

Board Member Bonilla noted that this change was the most recent in a string of civil rights advances since the beginning of his term. The BASD action follows on the heels of other recent advances for relationship recognition in Pennsylvania, including marriage equality endorsements from the Mayor of Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.

Ted Martin, Executive Director of Equality Pennsylvania, noted, “The Bethlehem Area School District should be applauded for doing the right thing by their LGBT employees. There are people who really need these benefits, and thanks to commonsense school district leaders, they will get it.”

sdf

Please share this content.

Buffer

Share on Tumblr