City to study offering domestic partner benefits
City to study offering domestic partner benefits
8:09 PM, Jan. 4, 2012
Cincinnati soon will start looking into offering city health benefits to employees’ domestic partners.
Councilman Chris Seelbach is circulating a motion that would order the city administration to study and report to council on how best to offer the benefits and what doing so might cost. The city’s first openly gay councilman had said he would introduce the idea within 100 days of his Nov. 8 election. An earlier Enquirer survey of council members suggest a clear majority of council backs the idea.
It’s not just about doing the right thing, Seelbach says, or helping the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. It’s about making the city competitive in attracting new residents.
“As we continue to compete for jobs and talent, I don’t want to lose someone because they say they can’t afford to lose benefits for their partner,” he said. “I don’t ever want that scenario.”
Cleveland and Columbus started offering them last year. In Cleveland, it was more symbolic than widespread, with just 15 people eligible after signing up on a domestic partner registry by mid-2011. Others could add partners by paying an extra $8,000 a year. The city’s cost was estimated to be just over $100,000.
In Columbus, benefits were extended to people who’d been in a relationship at least six months, intended to stay in the relationship indefinitely, were at least 18 and mentally competent and who could demonstrate financial interdependence.
The city estimated it would cost about $650,000 last year. Mayor Michael Coleman praised the vote, saying it put the city on a playing field with corporations like Cardinal Health, Nationwide and Limited Brands, which already offered the genefits.
Louisville starts offering the benefits in July and the city estimates 400 to 500 employees will take advantage of it.
The city of Berkeley, Calif., was the first city ever to do so, in 1984. An estimated 200 cities or counties, plus 21 states, extend benefits to domestic partners, said Chris Hartman, director of the Louisville-based Fairness Campaign.
Seelbach’s motion would start the process by asking the administration to report back to council with research and details. He expects it to be on council’s agenda next week, not at Wednesday’s meeting.
It would need support of a majority of the nine council members to pass, but that shouldn’t be a problem. During the campaign, all of those ultimately elected – except Charlie Winburn – told the Enquirer they would support the idea. Winburn couldn’t be reached for comment late Wednesday. In October, he sidestepped the question with: “I’m not aware of any proposals currently pending before the City of Cincinnati regarding this matter.”
Phil Burress, president of Sharonville-based Citizens for Community Values, said his group will watch what the city does and head to court if necessary. He said domestic partner benefits violate the 2004 Marriage Amendment, which passed in Ohio with almost 62 percent of the vote.
It said: “Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”
Burress said he doesn’t understand “why homosexuality – which is a behavior – is such a big priority with some people. I don’t want another fight with the city of Cincinnati,” he said. “But they’re begging for it and we’ll give it to them.”
