Faculty Benefits Committee Meeting Minutes

April 26, 2007, 3:30 – 5:00 PM

 

Present: Dale Atkins, Bettina Cothran, Leanne West, Chuck Donbaugh, John Grovenstein, Blair Funderburk, Freddie Everett, and Michael Chang

Administration

Minutes from the 3/28/2007 Committee Meeting were reviewed and approved.

Old Business

·        Postdoc eligibility for ORP vs. TRS

o       The General Faculty Assembly / Faculty Senate is scheduled to take a final vote on bestowing faculty status on postdocs on May 1. If passed, postdocs hired on or after May 1 will be eligible for the Optional Retirement Plan. [Note: from the May 1 minutes of the meeting of the General Faculty Assembly / Faculty Senate, “it was moved, seconded and passed without dissent and by the necessary 2/3 majority to accept the addition of Post Doctoral Fellows in the General Faculty.”]

o       It was noted that the Georgia General Assembly may consider in 2008 House Bill 815 (see attachment #1) that makes eligible all “exempt” employees eligible for the ORP, and decouples the ORP from the TRS.

·        Maternity Benefits

o       A GT Survey of maternity benefits offered by GT peer institutions was presented (see attachment #2). West commented that where Tech seems to be deficient relative to some schools is in the area of paid maternity leave. West recommends 6-12 weeks paid as ideal and a minimum of 2 weeks as a “step in the right direction.” She further inquired about maternity benefits at other applied research labs similar to GTRI and at non-peer institutions. The Committee had no information about these other organizations.

o       It was noted that Tech employees requested coverage for 214 babies born in 2005. It was not apparent however, how many of these babies may have been born to women employees of Tech (as opposed to spouses or partners of employees).

·        Domestic Partner Benefits

o       The Committee heard a report from Chang describing actions that the other state research universities (GSU, UGA, and MCG) are taking regarding passing a faculty senate resolution requesting that the USG provide domestic partner benefits, and their request that this Committee lead a similar effort at Georgia Tech. The other individuals at UGA and GSU that are leading this effort have decided to wait until the Fall 2007 semester to ask their respective Faculty Senates to vote on a resolution supporting domestic partner benefits. GSU and UGA faculty also drafted a report they intend to provide to the Chancellor (see attachment #3).

o       The GT Faculty Benefits Committee continued to support the objective of the efforts by organizers at GSU and UGA to secure domestic partner benefits, but does not support the strategy that these others are pursuing, and thus has chosen not to actively join their campaign. The Committee may continue to monitor this issue into the Fall Semester and react accordingly.

o       Chang will draft a short note to the faculty and staff members that have contacted the Committee regarding their support for domestic partner benefits.

·        International Travel Liabilities

o       Cothran reiterated a question she had about work related international travel with students and her liabilities. Tech’s Risk Manager, Freddie Everett, summarized Tech’s liability policy. Tort liability coverage: the State of GA self insures and covers claims that may arrive out of employees engaged in work related activities; if an employee is sued, they cannot be sued personally; suits must be against Georgia Tech or the Regents; awards are capped at $1 million. General liability: for suits arising in Federal courts and involving federal laws, employees are covered up to $25 million but it should be noted that employees can be sued personally. For international travelers, if an overseas party is seeking to recover money, they must come to GA to file the claim (under GT’s tort coverage). For international claims of a general liability nature, suits must be tried in a U.S. court.

o       Recognizing that as Tech is becoming more “international,” Donbaugh recommended that OHR draft a carefully worded statement that explains employee liability coverage during international travel. 

·        Roth 403b

o       26 employees have enrolled in the Roth 403b plan. OHR expects this will grow in time.

·        2nd childcare facility

o       Space is available in the 10th & Home complex for a 2nd on campus childcare facility. The space needs ~$1 million to finish it out, and could be made operational in one year. OHR has requested funds for it in their annual budget request, but it is not clear from where the money might come. No external sponsor has yet been identified. It was noted that Kris Klaus is building a childcare facility at Atlantic Station that may be available to some Tech employees.

New Business

·        Recommended Agenda carryovers to AY07/08

o       The Committee suggested that next year’s Committee consider the following issues: 1) Long Term Care, 2) Maternity Benefits, 3) Globalization including emerging issues in compensation and benefits, and 4) Personal and retirement investments.

·        AY 07/08 Committee Membership

o       Jean Hudgins will retire in May. Her replacement will be selected by the Faculty Senate. Michael Chang is rotating off the Committee. His replacement has been selected through the normal faculty elections process. Leanne West’s membership on this Committee is subject to assignment by the Executive Board. Eric Southard, the student representative, will be replaced by a new student representative. Bettina Cothran has been re-elected to serve for a 3-year term, 2007-2010. Lee Sheiner and Dale Atkins will continue to serve terms through 2009 and 2008 respectively. Chuck Donbaugh serves in perpetuity. All members were thanked for their service on the Committee this past year.     

Next Meeting

·        TBD Fall 2007.


Attachment #1

House Bill 815

By: Representatives Rogers of the 26th, Harbin of the 118th, Smith of the 113th, and Hembree of the 67th

 

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

 

To amend Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to retirement and pensions, so as to change the definition of persons who may opt between the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia and the Regents Retirement Plan; to change provisions relative to the employer´s contribution to the Regents Retirement Plan; to provide conditions for an effective date and automatic repeal; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

 

SECTION 1.

Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to retirement and pensions, is amended by revising subsection (a) of Code Section 47-3-68, relating to membership in the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia by eligible university system employees, as follows:

"(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'eligible university system employee' means faculty and principal administrators employed by the University System of Georgia, as designated by regulations of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, who are:

(1) Employed on or after July 1, 1990, and are eligible for membership in the retirement system provided for in this chapter as of the date of employment; or

(2) Members of the retirement system provided for in this chapter on July 1, 1990, with less than ten years of creditable service on that date; or

(3) Employed on or after July 1, 2008, as faculty members or as exempt employees within the meaning of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., who are eligible for membership in the retirement system provided for in this chapter as of the date of such employment."

 

SECTION 2.

Said title is further amended by revising subsection (b) of Code Section 47-21-4, relating to employee and other contributions to the Regents Retirement Plan, as follows:

"(b) The University System of Georgia shall contribute to the optional retirement plan on behalf of each participating employee the following:

(1) Prior to January 1, 1997, an amount equal to 4 percent of the participating employee´s earnable compensation; and

(2) On and after January 1, 1997, and before January 1, 2009, an amount equal to the normal cost contribution determined by the board of trustees in accordance with the provisions of Code Section 47-3-48. The provisions of this subsection are subject to subsequent legislation; provided, however, that such legislation shall not provide for a rate of contribution lower than 4 percent; and

(3) On and after January 1, 2009, an amount determined by the board of regents after consulting with the state auditor, the director of the Office of Planning and Budget, and the state accounting officer. The board of regents shall review the contribution amount every three years."

 

SECTION 3.

This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2008, only if it is determined to have been concurrently funded as provided in Chapter 20 of Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the "Public Retirement Systems Standards Law"; otherwise, this Act shall not become effective and shall be automatically repealed in its entirety on July 1, 2008, as required by subsection (a) of Code Section 47-20-50.

 

SECTION 4.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.


Attachment #2 Maternity Benefits Survey at GT Peer Institutions

 

 


Attachment #3 GSU / UGA draft domestic partners report to the Regents


REPORT ON ADDITION OF INSURANCE TIER

FOR USG EMPLOYEES

 

Prepared for:

Chancellor Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

and

The Georgia Board of Regents

 

Prepared by:

Professor Christine Gallant, Chair, University Senate Partners Insurance Task Force, with Associate Professor Margaret Albers, Professor Cathy Brack, and Mr. James Poulakos,

Georgia State University.

 

The faculty of Georgia’s four research universities considered this proposal at university-wide committee meetings on the following dates:

 

Georgia State University

Task Force on Partners Insurance (joint subcommittee of University Senate Cultural Diversity and Faculty Affairs Committees),10/3/06, 11/14/06, 12/5/06,1/10/07.

Senate Cultural Diversity Committee, 9/6/06,1/18/07, 3/16/07.

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee, 9/14/06, 3/15/07.

Senate Executive Committee, 4/9/07.                                    

University Senate vote expected: 4/19/07

 

University of Georgia

Faculty Benefits Committee, 2/12/07, 4/2/07.

University Council Executive Committee, 4/12/07.

University Council vote expected:  4/24/07.

 

Medical College of Georgia

Task Force on Domestic Partner Benefits, 2/23/07, 3/16.

Academic Council Executive Committee, 4/12/07.

Academic Council/General Faculty vote expected: 4/26/07 or 5/17/07.

 

Georgia Institute of Technology                                          

Faculty Benefits Committee, 9/11/06, 2/2/07.                                      

Still under committee consideration. No vote pending this Academic Year in

the Academic Senate/ General Faculty Assembly.

 

 

 

April 20, 2007

 

CONTENTS

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... ii

                     

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

 

COST IMPACT OF ADDED TIER..................................................................................... 3

 

THE COMPETITION: COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES................................................ 5  

 

THE COMPETITION: BUSINESSES AND MUNICIPALITIES........................................ 8

 

RECOMMENDATION....................................................................................................... 9

 

REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 10 

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix A:  University Affidavits of Domestic Partnership ……………………   11A-F

 

Appendix B: University System of Georgia Pay Raises, 2001-2006...................................... 12

 

Appendix C: Metro Atlanta Municipalities with Domestic Partner

                        Benefits, Enrollments as of 12/2006............................................................. 13

 

Appendix D-A: Human Rights Campaign Document: Colleges and

            Universities with Domestic Partner Benefits...................................................... 14A- G

 

Appendix D: National Colleges/Universities with Domestic

            Partner Benefits:  Public Colleges/Universities; U.S. News and World Report’s

            Top Public Universities (2005); Members of the American Association of

            Universities; Southern (SACS Region) Colleges/Universities; Regional

            Schools/Colleges of Nursing; “Urban 13” Universities; Georgia

            Board of Regents-Ranked Peer and Aspirational Institutions..................................... 15

 

 

Appendix E: Regional Businesses and Industries with Domestic Partner Benefits:

            Atlanta Fortune 500 Businesses and Corporations;

            Regional Fortune 500 Businesses and Corporations;

            Georgia-Based Businesses....................................................................................... 25


 Report on Addition of Insurance Tier for USG Employees

    Executive Summary

 

            Georgia’s research universities are finding it difficult to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining excellent faculty and staff, because university salary increases have been below the national inflation rate for Fiscal Years 2004, 2005, and 2006. They can only offer recruiting salaries that correspond to state salaries. Expanding the employee benefit package of the research universities would assist them in remaining competitive. A significant, yet very cost-effective, recruiting and retention tool for these universities would be the addition of domestic partners as a subsidized tier to their present insurance providers. Under Georgia law, a domestic partner may be a member of either the opposite or the same sex.

 

            Cost Impact of Added Tier

·        In the two decades since domestic partner plans were first implemented nationally, they have not caused their employers’ average health care costs to increase significantly nor health insurance premiums to be raised generally.

·        The majority of employers with domestic partner benefits experience a total financial impact of less than 1% of the total benefits cost.

·        Companies report increased medical claims of less than 1% after introducing domestic partner coverage.

·        Most companies that offer domestic partner benefits report an insurance enrollment of partners between 1.3% and 2%.

 

            The Competition: Colleges and Universities

·        Universities compete for excellent research faculty, because such faculty increase professional prestige and attract stronger students.

·        The federally sponsored research fellowships awarded such faculty provide universities with direct and indirect financial support for faculty salaries and administrative costs.

·        299 national and regional colleges and universities offer domestic partners benefits, including nearly all of the Regents-rated aspirational institutions for Georgia’s research universities and at least half of their peer institutions.

 

The Competition: Businesses and Municipalities

·        Many metro Atlanta businesses that are attractive to University staff, as well as those in fields such as communication, healthcare, and technology that draw University faculty, offer domestic partner benefits.

·       As of 2006 more than half of the national Fortune 500 companies offered domestic partner benefits, many of them located in Atlanta.

·       The City of Atlanta, Athens-Clarke County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, and three other nearby municipalities offer domestic partner benefits to their employees.


Report on Addition of Insurance Tier for USG Employees

 

Introduction

            This report proposes an important, yet very cost-effective way in which Georgia’s research universities may become more competitive in the recruiting and retention of outstanding faculty and staff. The research universities of the University System of Georgia should add domestic partners as a subsidized tier to their present insurance providers to increase their ability to recruit and retain employees. It should be emphasized that in the state of Georgia, a domestic partner may be a member either of the opposite sex or of the same sex.  A domestic partnership is defined as one in which a person resides with, is financially interdependent upon, and shares the common necessities of life with the person’s unmarried partner.  The four research universities now offer some institutionally-controlled benefits for domestic partners.  They require affidavits of domestic partnership that would also be required for such healthcare insurance. See Appendix A.

            Health insurance is consistently ranked by the majority of employees as the single most important employment benefit. This is particularly true for state employees whose salaries are traditionally lower than those in the private sector. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found in a 2003 survey of state employee benefits packages that twenty-six of the thirty-nine state officials ranked health insurance as the most important benefit they offered (AAUP, “2005-6 Economic Status Report”). Being able to offer this expanded healthcare compensation package would make Georgia’s research universities more attractive to potential and present faculty and staff.

            Employee recruiting and retention has become increasingly difficult for the research universities within recent years, for state budgetary constraints have restricted our university salaries to raises of 0% for Fiscal Year 2004, and 2.0% for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006. (See Appendix B.). Yet the inflation rate, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, averaged 2.5% for 2003 and 2004, and 3.5% for 2006 (AAUP, “2005-06 Economic Status Report”).

            The negative effect of these low state raises upon the universities’ recruiting powers has been cumulative. Annual raises are based on a percentage of the previous year’s salary, and a small percentage of a modest base salary added to that salary does not change it much. This will be even truer the following year. The net effect of these low raises has been that the university state salaries have more or less stood still during the last three years, while the cost of living has risen. Each year our universities have only been able to offer recruiting salaries commensurate with these state salaries. Each year our universities have fallen further behind in the regional and national employment markets.  

            Direct data on the number of domestic partners nationally or the number of University employees who would be eligible for such insurance cannot be legally ascertained; nor can it legally be determined how many employees have failed to be recruited or have left the universities because these benefits are not offered. The Freedom of Information Act prohibits disclosing to the public “matters involving the personal privacy and personnel or medical records of a third party” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Therefore this report is drawing its conclusions from research into the literature from 1997 through 2006 that gives the experiences of public and private colleges and universities, business corporations, and municipalities that have adopted domestic partners healthcare insurance benefits for their employees, as well as from University administrators.

 

Cost Impact of Added Tier

            State Human Resources specialists must first determine the probable cost impact of adding this new tier to present insurance providers. Are a large number of employees likely to enroll their domestic partners, thus increasing their institution’s healthcare costs? Would the new enrollees be likely to have higher than average healthcare expenses and increased medical claims, thus eventually raising the insurance premiums for all tiers?      The first such insurance plans were implemented in the early 1980s, so there is considerable evidence to address these two concerns. The data shows that the cost impact of adding this insurance tier is minimal for the employer. It should be noted that these benefits bear additional costs for the employees, however, for the IRS considers the employer’s contribution for a partner’s health coverage to be taxable income for the employee, unlike the employer’s coverage for a spouse. 

            Hewitt Associates LLC has undertaken surveys to discover the financial impact of domestic partner coverage on employers. As of 2005, this highly reputable global outsourcing and human resources consulting company had a client roster that included more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. A 1997 Hewitt Associates study found that companies reported increased medical claims of less than 1% after domestic partner coverage was introduced (“Update to 1994 Study,” Hewitt Associates). A 2005 Hewitt Associates study showed that the majority of employers, or 64%, experienced a total financial impact of less than 1% of total benefit cost; while only 5% of employers experienced financial impacts of 3% or greater of total benefits cost (“Benefits Programs for Domestic Partners,” Hewitt Associates).

            Employers pay a percentage of their employees’ healthcare insurance premiums as part of their compensation packages. Thus, the employers’ healthcare costs would rise by roughly the same percentage as new domestic partner enrollments (Badgett and Ash; and Badgett). Over the last few decades, schools and businesses have reported a very low enrollment and thus a very low cost increase associated with domestic partner benefits: roughly a 1.3 to 1.8% increase in enrollment (Ash and Badgett; Badgett). On a local level, six municipalities in the metro Atlanta area offer such benefits. As of December 2006, the percentages of partner enrollees ranged from 0.2% to 1.9%. (See Appendix C.)   It is unlikely that adding domestic partners as an insurance tier would be a factor in any possible increase in health care premiums. When domestic partner plans were first introduced, employers feared that a large number of gay men would sign up HIV-infected men as partners, and that as a result the average health care costs would increase and insurance premiums overall would rise. These fears have proved unfounded over the subsequent decades.

            Further, medical advances since the late 1990s have lowered the cost of AIDS treatments, so that they are now no more expensive than other chronic illnesses. Recent advances in treatment have added costly drugs, but cut hospitalization costs (Hellinger, “Cost and Financing”). The impact of new drug therapies on the longevity and progression of HIV disease has been dramatic, so that as of 2004 HIV disease may be thought of as a moderately expensive chronic disease rather than a catastrophically expensive fatal illness (Hellinger, “HIV Patients”).

 

The Competition: Colleges and Universities

            Universities compete hard for outstanding research faculty. There are both tangible and intangible benefits to attracting such faculty and keeping them as longtime employees. The universities gain national professional prestige from a productive research faculty, with recognition in the field, higher department rankings, and the increased ability to attract stronger graduate and undergraduate students. These are the faculty who secure federally sponsored grants and fellowships for their research, which is among the criteria for ranking the colleges of universities by the National Research Council. This in turn is used in the more general ranking of the universities. All of this contributes to the recruiting of other outstanding faculty, for among the most significant positive factors in such recruitment are the prestige of the university and the quality of its faculty members (Purdue University Faculty Survey).

            These grants and federal contracts also provide the universities with direct financial support for expenses associated with research, instructional and public service projects. This includes salaries for faculty and student assistants, thus freeing state dollars for the universities to use elsewhere. In addition, sponsoring agencies typically pay for the indirect cost of the sponsored activities to help defray the indirect expenses, such as the costs of administrative staff, buildings, heat and air conditioning, and so on. This indirect cost is funded as a percentage of the direct costs of the project; and these funds for indirect costs go directly to the universities. Half is retained by the central administration, and half flows down to the college and department of the professor who directs the project.

            In 2004, for example, the federal research expenditures that were received in this way for the Georgia Institute of Technology were $235 million, for the University of Georgia were $124.3 million, and for Georgia State University were $24.8 million (Fritz). In 2005, the federal research expenditures received in this way for the Medical College of Georgia were $41.9 million (Fritz). The faculty of Georgia’s research universities are important to their universities’ financial as well as professional well-being.

            These research universities face increasing competition to hire and to keep their premier faculty and staff, both at the regional and the national levels. For the last three years, the annual salary increases they have been able to offer have been lower than the annual inflation rate. In the national picture, the 2005-06 salary increases of continuing (tenured and tenure-track) faculty at all doctoral universities averaged 4.6% (AAUP, “2005-6 Economic Status Report”), considerably higher than our state salary increases.

            National and regional colleges and universities have increasingly expanded their overall compensation packages by adopting domestic partners insurance benefits, considering them an important recruiting and retention tool. For faculty, such benefits enhance the compensation package generally. In addition, they are quite often seen as a hallmark of a school that values diversity. For staff, such benefits have been ranked as the most effective recruiting incentive for executives and the third most effective recruiting incentive for managers and line workers (Human Resources Management). They also improve the employee retention rate.

            In its “State of the Workplace Report, 2006,” the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) lists the 299 nation’s colleges and universities that offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits, an impressive and substantial number that includes many of the schools that compete with our state research universities for their best faculty. (See Appendix D:A-G.) Thirty-one of the Southern Colleges and Universities schools (SACS Region) are listed. So are 63% of the top public universities according to U.S. News and World Report, and 85% of the members of the American Association of Universities. (See Appendix D.) The HRC list includes many of the peer and aspirational institutions of Georgia’s four research universities as rated by the Board of Regents. Nearly all of the Regents-rated aspirational institutions for the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University and the University of Georgia offer domestic partner benefits, while one of the four aspirational institutions for the Medical College of Georgia does. At least half of the Regents-rated peer institutions for the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, and the University of Georgia, and two of the peer institutions for the Medical College of Georgia, offer these benefits. (See Appendix D.)

            The retention of nursing faculty is a particular concern for the Medical College of Georgia and Georgia State University, since the field is a competitive one. Appendix D lists the schools of nursing in this region that offer domestic partner benefits, as well as the public and private universities across the country that do so, many of which are associated with major hospitals and medical centers. Appendix E shows the regional Fortune 500 healthcare industries offering domestic partner benefits. All of these present strong competition for the nursing faculty at Georgia’s two research universities with Schools of Nursing.

            Since 1915, the non-profit AAUP has represented professors; and their professional definition of academic freedom has withstood many legal challenges over the years. They often work with Congress and state legislatures to promote effective higher education legislation. AAUP supports the provision of domestic partner benefits to professors and states that “developing a domestic partnership benefits package may provide a college or university an edge in recruiting faculty” (AAUP, “Domestic Partners Benefits on Campus”).

 

The Competition: Businesses and Municipalities

            Corporate America also has realized that offering domestic partner benefits as part of the compensation package is good business sense. In April, 2006, Fortune noted the remarkable boost in the number of Fortune 500 companies that have inaugurated such benefits for their employees. As a defense contractor remarked: “No company wants to make any of its people feel uncomfortable or unwanted” (Gunther). Whereas only 28 companies had offered them in 1996, 253 did in 2006 (“State of the Workplace Report, 2006,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation).

            Metro Atlanta ranks third in the nation among cities with the most Fortune 500 headquarters with 16 corporations, and eleven of these offer domestic partner benefits. (See Appendix E.) Many other of the large number of national businesses and corporations that carry domestic partner benefits are located in Atlanta and the region, as are many healthcare, media, and technology industries that offer them. A substantial number of major businesses in metro Atlanta, including newspaper, magazine, radio, and television companies, offer domestic partner insurance. (See Appendix E.)  Employment in this private corporate sector with domestic partner benefits is particularly attractive to faculty in certain fields, such as nursing, communication, the sciences, and technology.  It need not be emphasized that this commercial concentration can make retention of staff employees of the research universities more difficult. The turnover of experienced directors, office managers and other highly qualified staff is generally expensive; and the costs of recruiting and training a new employee include those of interviewing, training, and lost productivity.

            Employment in the public sector of government can attract the faculty as well as staff of our research universities. The City of Atlanta includes domestic partners insurance as part of its compensation package. So do three other cities in metro Atlanta—Decatur, Doraville, and East Point—and three surrounding counties—Athens-Clarke County, DeKalb County, and Fulton County. (See Appendix C.)

 

Recommendation

            The amendment of our present healthcare providers to add the subsidized tier of domestic partners thus would be a very cost-efficient recruiting and retention tool for our research universities. The increasing numbers of excellent universities and successful businesses in both the public and the private sectors offering such benefits show that they too consider this to be a way to attract and keep their best employees. Georgia’s research universities request that the Chancellor and the Regents make us more competitive in the academic marketplace by allowing us to offer these subsidized insurance benefits for our employees.


References

Ash, Michael A. University of Massachusetts-Amherst and  M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams             Institute on Sexual Orientation, Law & Public Policy, UCLA School of Law,            “Frequently Asked Questions About Providing Domestic Partners Benefits,” 2006.           http://www.outfront.org/events/HealthInsuranceEqualityFAQs.pdf (12/15/2006).

 

American Association of University Professors. 2005-06 Economic Status Report http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/About/committees/committee+repts/compensation/survey2005-06.html  (12/7/2006).

 

….. “Domestic Partner Benefits on Campus,” August 2005. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protectrights/legal/Updates-speeches/partners.html  (12/15/2006)

 

Badgett, M.V. Lee. “Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits for Domestic          Partners,” Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic             Studies, 5:1, November 2000, pp. 1-8.

 

Fritz, William J. [Associate Provost for Academic Programs, Georgia State University]. “Georgia State University Dashboard Benchmark Data.” Report for the University Senate Planning and Development Committee (December 18, 2006).

 

Hellinger, Fred J. “Cost and Financing of Care for Persons with HIV Diseases: An           Overview.” Health Care Financing Review 19 (1998).

 

Hellinger, Fred J. “HIV Patients in the HCUP Database: A Study of Hospital Utilization   and       Costs.” Inquiry 41 (Spring 2004): 95-105.

 

Hewitt Associates.  “Benefit Programs for Domestic Partners & Same-Sex Spouses.”     Lincolnshire, Ill.: July 2005.

 

Hewitt Associates. “Update to 1994 Study of Domestic Partner Benefits.” Lincolnshire,   Ill.        (January 1997).

 

Human Resources Management: Ideas and Trends. “1999 Society for Human Management/Commerce Clearing House Recruiting Practices Survey.” 460 (June             16, 1999).

 

Human Rights Campaign Foundation. “State of the Workplace Report, 2006.” (This was   downloaded for Appendix C from a protected Adobe file that could not be edited.)         www.hrc.org/workplace (12/7/06)

 

Purdue University. Faculty Survey- Faculty Recruitment and Retention 2001. Faculty Affairs        Committee, University Senate Report.

            www.cyto.purdue.edu/facsurvey/faculty/survey/results/recruitment.html

 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.“Questions and Answers: Freedom of    Information Act Requests,” http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/qanda_foirequest.html             (12/14/2006).

 


Appendix A: Universities’ Affidavits of Domestic Partnership

 

(NOTE: The Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, and the University of Georgia all offer limited benefits for domestic partners, and require affidavits for domestic partnerships. The Medical College of Georgia offers full healthcare benefits for the domestic partners and spouses of their students, but do not require an affidavait. As Adobe files, these university documents of the affidavits for domestic partnership cannot be transferred electronically to this Appendix.  However, a hard copy can be made, and it will be included with the report itself.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

 

Salary Increases for USG Employees: 2001-2006.

 

 

FY 2001 3.0%           

Effective date: 10/1/00

 

FY 2002 4.5%

Effective date: 10/1/01

 

FY 2003 3.25%

Effective date: 10/1/02

 

FY 2004 No Increase

 

FY 2005 2.0%

Effective date: 1/1/05

 

FY 2006 2.0%

Effective date: 1/1/06

 

 

 

Source:

Christopher P. Hill, Director of Budget & Planning, Georgia State University.


Appendix C

 

Metro Atlanta Municipalities:

Enrollments in Domestic Partnership Healthcare Plans

as of 12/2006

 

 

Atlanta: 9,000 employees; 168 applied for the benefits (1.9%).

 

DeKalb County:  7,400 employees; 16 applied (0.2%).

 

Fulton County: 6,748 employees; 27 applied (0.4%).

 

East Point:  650 employees; 2 applied (0.3%).

 

Decatur:  205 employees; 1 applied (0.5%).

 

Doraville:  106 employees; 1 applied (0.9%).

 

 

 

Source:

Charles Woo, “Low Enrollment in Same-Sex Plans Keeps Costs Down,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 14, 2006.

 


Appendix D: A-G

 

Colleges and Universities with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits  

 

(NOTE: As an Adobe file from the Human Rights Campaign, this list of the 299 colleges and universities with domestic partner benefits cannot be transferred electronically to this Appendix.  However, a hard copy can be made, and it will be included with the report itself.)


Appendix D

 

Public Colleges/Universities with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

 

Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute (NM)

Ball State University (IN)

Broward Community College (FL)

California State University (all campuses)

Central Michigan University

City University of New York (all campuses)

Cleveland State University (OH)

Connecticut State University

DeAnza Community College (CA)

Eastern Connecticut University

Eastern Michigan University

Hillsborough Community College (FL)

Humboldt State University (CA)

Indiana University (all campuses)

Iowa State University

Keene State College (NH)

Kirkwood Community College (IA)

Lansing Community College (MI)

Maricopa County Community College District (AZ)

Miami University (OH)

Miami-Dade Community College (FL)

Michigan State University

New Mexico State University

Northampton Community College (PA)

Northern Illinois Univerity (IL)

Northern Michigan University

Oakland University (MI)

Ohio State University

Ohio University

Oregon Health and Science University

Pennsylvania State University

Plymouth State University (NH)

Portland Community College (OR)

Portland State University (OR)

Purdue University (IN, all campuses)

Rutgers University (NJ, all campuses)

San Diego State University (CA)

San Francisco Community College District (CA)

San Francisco State University (CA)

San Jose State University (CA)

Sonoma State University (CA)

Southern Connecticut University

Southern Illinois University

Southern Oregon University

State University of New York (all campuses)

Temple University (PA)

University of Alaska (all campuses)

University of California (all campuses)

University of Colorado (all campuses)

University of Connecticut (all campuses)

University of Florida

University of Illinois (all campuses)

University of Iowa

University of Louisville (KY)

University of Maine (all campuses)

University of Michigan (all campuses)

University of Minnesota (all campuses)

University of Montana (all campuses)

University of New Hampshire

University of New Mexico

University of Northern Iowa

University of Oregon (all campuses)

University of Pittsburgh (PA)

University of Rhode Island (all campuses)

University of Toledo (OH)

University of Utah

University of Vermont

University of Washington (all campuses)

Wayne State University (MI)

Western Connecticut University

Western Wisconsin Technical College

Youngstown State University (OH)

 

 

U.S. News and World Report’s Top Public Universities (2005)

 

#

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

1

University of California (Berkeley)

X

2

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)

X

2

University of Virginia

 

4

University of California (Los Angeles)

X

5

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)

 

6

College of William and Mary

 

7

University of Wisconsin (Madison)

 

8

University of California (San Diego)

X

9

University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)

X

10

Georgia Institute of Technology

 

11

University of California (Davis)

X

12

University of California (Irvine)

X

13

University of California (Santa Barbara)

X

14

University of Texas (Austin)

X

14

University of Washington

X

16

Pennsylvania State University (University Park)

X

16

University of Florida

X

18

University of Maryland (College Park)

 

19

Rutgers State University (New Brunswick)

X

19

University of Georgia

 

19

University of Iowa

X

22

Miami University (Oxford, OH)

X

22

Ohio State University (Columbus)

X

22

Purdue University (West Lafayette)

X

22

Texas A&M University (College Station)

 

26

University of Connecticut

X

26

University of Delaware

 

26

University of Minnesota (Twin Cities)

X

26

University of Pittsburgh

X

30

Indiana University (Bloomington)

X

30

Michigan State University

X

32

Clemson University

 

32

State University of New York (Binghamton)

X

32

University of California (Santa Cruz)

X

32

University of Colorado (Boulder)

X

32

Virginia Polytechnic University

 

37

University of California (Riverside)

X

38

Iowa State University

X

39

North Carolina State University (Raleigh)

 

39

University of Alabama

 

39

University of Missouri (Columbia)

 

42

Auburn University

 

42

University of Kansas

 

42

University of Tennessee (Knoxville)

 

42

University of Vermont

X

46

Ohio University

X

46

State University of New York (College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry)

X

46

University of Arizona

 

46

University of Massachusetts (Amherst)

X

46

University of Nebraska (Lincoln)

 

46

University of New Hampshire

X

 

 

 

Members of the American Association of Universities

 

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Brandeis University

X

Brown University

X

California Institute of Technology

X

Carnegie Mellon University

X

Case Western Reserve University

X

Columbia University

X

Cornell University

X

Duke University

X

Emory University

X

Harvard University

X

Indiana University (Bloomington)

X

Iowa State University

X

The Johns Hopkins University

X

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

X

McGill University

X

Michigan State University

X

New York University

X

Northwestern University

X

Ohio State University (Columbus)

X

Pennsylvania State University (College Park)

X

Princeton University

X

Purdue University (West Lafayette)

X

Rice University

X

Rutgers State University (New Brunswick)

X

Stanford University

X

State University of New York (Buffalo)

X

State University of New York (Stony Brook)

X

Syracuse University

X

Texas A&M University (College Station)

 

Tulane University

X

University of Arizona

 

University of California (Berkeley)

X

University of California (Davis)

X

University of California (Irvine)

X

University of California (Los Angeles)

X

University of California (San Diego)

X

University of California (Santa Barbara)

X

University of Chicago

X

University of Colorado (Boulder)

X

University of Florida

X

University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)

X

The University of Iowa

X

University of Kansas

 

University of Maryland (College Park)

X

University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)

X

University of Minnesota (Twin Cities)

X

University of Missouri (Columbia)

 

University of Nebraska (Lincoln)

 

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)

 

University of Oregon

X

University of Pennsylvania

X

University of Pittsburgh

X

University of Rochester

X

University of Southern California

X

University of Texas (Austin)

 

University of Toronto

X

University of Virginia

 

University of Washington

X

University of Wisconsin (Madison)

 

Vanderbilt University

X

Washington University in St. Louis

X

Yale University

X

 

 

Southern Colleges and Universities (SACS Region)

with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

 

Broward Community College (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Daytona Beach, FL)

Hillsborough Community College (Tampa, FL)

Miami-Dade Community College (Miami, FL)

Nova Southeastern University (Fort Lauderdale, FL)

Rollins College (Winter Park, FL)

Stetson University (DeLand, FL)

University of Florida (Gainesville, FL)

University of Miami (Miami, FL)

Agnes Scott College (Decatur, GA)

Emory University (Atlanta, GA)

Centre College (Danville, KY)

University of Louisville (Louisville, KY)

Tulane University (New Orleans, LA)

Davidson College (Davidson, NC)

Duke University (Durham, NC)

Elon University (Elon, NC)

Guilford College (Greensboro, NC)

Salem College (Winston-Salem, NC)

Wake Forest University (Winston-Salem, NC)

Warren Wilson College (Asheville, NC)

Furman University (Greenville, SC)

Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN)

Baylor College of Medicine (Houston, TX)

Rice University (Houston, TX)

Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX)

Southwestern University (Georgetown, TX)

Trinity University (San Antonio, TX)

Hollins University (Roanoke, VA)

Sweet Briar College (Sweet Briar, VA)

Washington and Lee University (Lexington, VA)

 

 

Regional Schools/Colleges of Nursing with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

 

Baylor College of Medicine (Houston, TX)

Duke University (Durham, NC)

Emory University (Atlanta, GA)

Trinity University (San Antonio, TX)

Tulane University (New Orleans, LA)

University of Florida (Gainesville, FL)

University of Louisville (Louisville, KY)

Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia Board of Regents-Ranked Research Universities

 

Georgia State University

 

Peer Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Arizona State University

 

George Mason University

 

State University of New York, Albany

X

Temple University

X

University of Alabama, Birmingham

 

University of  Cincinnati

 

University of Houston-University Park

 

University of Illinois, Chicago

X

University of Louisville

X

University of New Mexico

X

University of South Florida

 

University of Tennessee

 

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

 

Virginia Commonwealth University

 

Wayne State University

X

 

Aspirational Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Florida State University

 

Indiana University-Bloomington

X

Rutgers University

X

State University of New York, Buffalo

X

University of Arizona

 

University of California, Irvine

X

University of California, Los Angeles

X

University of California, San Diego

X

University of Iowa

X

University of Maryland, College Park

 

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

X

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

 

University of Pittsburgh

X

University of Virginia

 

University of  Washington

X

 

 

 

 

“Urban 13”

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

City College of New York

X

Cleveland State University

X

Florida Agricultural & Mechanical Univ.

 

Georgia State University

 

Indiana Univ. Purdue Univ., Indianapolis

X

Portland State University

X

Temple University

X

University of Alabama at Birmingham

 

University of Cincinnati

 

University of Houston

 

University of Illinois-Chicago

X

University of Massachusetts at Boston

X

University of Memphis

 

University of Missouri-Kansas City

 

University of Missouri-St. Louis

 

University of New Orleans

 

University of Pittsburgh

X

University of Toledo

X

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

 

Virginia Commonwealth University

 

Wayne State University

X

 

University of Georgia

 

Peer Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Arizona State University

 

Indiana University (Bloomington)

X

Iowa State University

X

Michigan State University

X

North Carolina State University

 

Texas A&M University

 

University of California (Davis)

X

University of Colorado

X

University of Iowa

X

University of Kansas

 

University of Maryland (College Park)

 

University of Missouri (Columbia)

 

University of Nebraska (Lincoln)

 

University of Oregon

X

Virginia Polytechnic University

 

Aspirational Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Cornell University

X

Duke University

X

Northwestern University

X

University of Arizona

 

University of California (Berkeley)

X

University of California (San Diego)

X

University of Illinois

X

University of Michigan

X

University of Minnesota

X

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)

 

University of Texas (Austin)

 

University of Virginia

 

University of Washington

X

University of Wisconsin (Madison)

 

 

Georgia Institute of Technology

 

School

Peer

Aspirational

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

California I. Tech.

 

X

X

Carnegie Mellon U.

 

X

X

Cornell University

X

X

X

Johns Hopkins U.

 

X

X

M.I.T.

X

X

X

North Carolina State

X

 

 

Northwestern U.

 

X

X

Penn. State Univ.

X

 

X

Purdue Univ.-Main

X

X

X

Stanford University

X

X

X

Texas A&M

X

 

 

U.Calif.-Berkeley

X

X

X

UCLA

X

X

X

Univ. of Florida

X

 

X

U.Ill.-Champaign

X

X

X

U.Mich.-Ann Arbor

X

X

X

U.Minn-Twin Cities

 

X

X

U.Texas-Austin

X

X

 

U.Washington

X

X

X

Virginia Poly. Inst.

X

 

 

 

 

Medical College of Georgia

 

Peer Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

LSU Medical Center

 

Medical University of South Carolina

 

SUNY Health Science Ctr-Brooklyn

X

SUNY Health Science Ctr.-Syracuse

X

U.Arkansas for Medical Sciences

 

U.Nebraska-Medical Center

 

U.Tennessee-Memphis

 

 

Aspirational Institutions

School

Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Oregon Health Sciences University

X

U. Texas-HSC Houston

 

U. Texas-HSC San Antonio

 

U. Texas Medical Branch Galveston

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:  Human Rights Campaign 2006: Colleges and Universities that Offer Domestic Partner Health Benefits.

 

The Gainesville [Florida] Sun, 2007. davis@gvillesun.com

 

University of Toledo [Ohio] Web-site, 3/28/2007.

 

Pappas Consulting Group, Inc., “University System of Georgia, Benchmarking and Review Study Project, Scope 1 Report,” Appendix B. September 2000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E

 

Fortune 500 Corporations-Atlanta Headquarters

With Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits, as of 2007.

The Home Depot (Fortune rank: 14)

United Parcel Service (rank: 44)

The Coca-Cola Company (rank: 89)

BellSouth Corporation (rank: 106)

Coca-Cola Enterprises (rank: 120)

Delta Air Lines (rank: 135)

Sun-Trust Banks (rank: 217)

Cox Communications (rank: 316)

Mohawk Industries, Calhoun, Ga. (rank: 327)

Newell Rubbermaid Incorporated (rank: 332)

Mirant Corporation (rank: 479)

 

Computer and Data Service Industries (Fortune 500)

in Metro Atlanta with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Apple Computer Inc.

ChoicePoint Inc. (Alpharetta, Ga.)

Eastman Kodak Co.

Electronic Data Systems Corporation

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Honeywell International Inc.

International Business Machines Corporation

Lockheed Martin Co.

Lucent Technologies Inc.

Microsoft Corporation

Nextel Communications

Unisys Corporation

Xerox Corporation

 

Pharmaceutical Companies (Fortune 500)

in Metro Atlanta with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Abbott Laboratories

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Dow Chemical Co.

DuPont (E.I. duPont de Nemours)

Eli Lilly & Co.

Johnson & Johnson

Merck & Co., Inc.

Pfizer Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

 

 

Regional Healthcare Companies with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Geisinger Health System (West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania)

HCA- Hospital Corporation of America (Fortune 500 company)

Medtronic Inc. (Fortune 500 Company)

 

Media Companies in Metro Atlanta and Vicinities

with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits

Newspapers

Atlanta Business Chronicle

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution (Fortune 500)

The Times (Gainesville, Ga.)

Macon Telegraph (Macon, Ga.)

Television and Telecommunications

Cingular Wireless (Fortune 500)

CNN (Cable News Network) (Fortune 500)

Cox Communications (Fortune 500)

Time Warner Inc. (Fortune 500)

WAGA-TV

WATL-TV

WGCL-TV (Channel 46)

WMAZ-TV (Macon, Ga.)

WSB-TV

WXIA-TV

Radio

WAOK-AM

WCNN-AM

WDWD-AM

WJZF-FM

WKHX-FM

WSB-AM

WSB-FM

WVEE-FM

WYAY-FM

WZGC-FM

 

Other Regional Fortune 500 Businesses and Corporations

 with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits, as of 2006.

Aetna Inc.

Allstate Corporation

American Express Company

AT&T Corporation

AT&T Inc.

Avon Products

Bank of America Corporation

Barnes & Noble Inc.

Charles Schwab Corporation

Chevron Corporation

CIGNA Corporation

Eastman Kodak Co.

Federated Department Stores

Ford Motor Co.

General Electric Co.

General Mills Inc.

General Motors Corp.

Guidant Corporation

HealthNet, Inc.

Hilton Hotels Corporation

MBNA Corporation

McDonald’s Corporation

Merrill Lynch & Co.

Office Depot Inc.

PepsiCo Inc.

Quest Diagnostics Inc.

Starbucks Corporation

SunTrust Banks Inc.

Target Corporation

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association- College Retirement Equities Fund

United Parcel Service Inc.

Wachovia Corporation

Walgreens Co.

Well Point, Inc.

Weyerhauser Co.

Yahoo! Inc.

 

Georgia-Based Businesses with Domestic Partner Healthcare Benefits,

as of 2007.

A V L Scientific Corp., Roswell, GA

Aaron’s Concessions, Atlanta, GA       

AGL Resources, Inc., Atlanta, GA

Alstopn & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA

ALTA Language Services, Inc., Atlanta, GA

American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA

American Material Handling, Inc., Atlanta, GA

Argenbright Security Inc., Atlanta, GA

Atlanta Gas & Light, Atlanta, GA

Atlanta Labor Council, Atlanta, GA

Back Associates, Inc. Atlanta, GA

Bell Northern Research, Norcross, GA

BellSouth Corp., Atlanta, GA

BlueCross BlueShield of Georgia, Atlanta, GA.

Box Office Tickets, Inc., Atlanta, GA

CSG Advisors Inc., Alpharetta, GA

Chamberlin Edmonds & Associates Inc., Atlanta, GA

Collins & Aikman FlCollins & Aikman Floorcoverings  Inc. (C&A Floorcoverings, Inc)             dba Tandus, Dalton, GA

Cox Enterprises, Atlanta, GA

DS Waters of America (dba Sierra Springs), Atlanta, GA

EarthLink Inc., Atlanta, GA

Educational Visions Inc., Atlanta, GA

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

GE Energy, Atlanta, GA

Gray Consulting, Atlanta, GA

Heery International Inc., Atlanta, GA

Immucor, Inc., Norcross, GA

Indus International, Atlanta, GA

ING North America Insurance Corp., Atlanta, GA

Justice Packaging Corporation, St. Simons Island, GA

Kilpattrick Stockton LLP,  Atlanta, GA

King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA

Media Managements Systems Inc., Stone Mountain, GA

Mirant Corporation, Atlanta, GA

Momar Inc., Atlanta, GA

National Revenue Corporation (subsidiary of Risk Management Alternatives),

            Duluth, GA

Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Atlanta, GA

Northstar Vinyl Products Llc. Kennesaw, GA

Polydyne Inc., Riceboro, GA

Powell Goldstein LLP, Atlanta, GA

Radiant Systems Inc., Alpharetta, GA

Randstad Staffing Services Inc., Atlanta, GA

Ritz Carleton Hotels, Atlanta, GA

S 1 Corp., Atlanta, GA

Siemens Energy & Automation Inc., Alpharetta, GA

Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Atlanta, GA

Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Atlanta, GA

Unisource, Norcross, GA

Unisplint Corp., Norcross, GA

Worldspan Technologies Inc. Atlanta, GA

 

 

Sources:

Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “2007 Corporate Equality Index.”

Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “State of the Workplace Report, 2007,”      Appendix: Policies at Fortune 500 Companies.

            Appendix: Private Sector in Georgia