The Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund board voted unanimously
at its July 21 meeting to conduct a feasibility study to explore the impact of such an offering, and to examine how other
state and out-of-state governments and corporations implement such benefits.
Fund meetings are usually not open to the public, but two Republican
observers were allowed to attend the meeting after they filed an injunction to compel the group to hold open meetings.
The Republicans who filed the lawsuit, House Majority Leader
Sam Smith (Punxsutawney) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Brett Feese (Lycoming), argue the fund does not have
the power to enact such benefits.
A trustee representing the service employee international union
brought up domestic-partner benefits on behalf of that union, according to fund spokeswoman Christy Leo.
There is no timetable for the study, which will include a cost
analysis to determine the potential financial impact and whether PEBTF could absorb some of the additional costs. The results
of the study will be presented to the board before it makes a decision on the benefits, Leo said.
"Of course, this is important because the state fund provides
health care for state employees, but also because of our sheer size it makes it more important, because it affects a large
group of people," Leo said.
Trustees will also consider trends in other states to offer
such benefits.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia, including New Jersey
and New York, offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of state public employees, according to the Human Rights
Campaign.
Some Pennsylvania state workers unions, including the Service
Employee International Union, which represents more than 20,000 workers, began offering extended sick leave and bereavement
leave for all domestic partners, due to collective bargaining negotiations completed in July 2003.
Domestic-partner benefits, if enacted, would be extended to
all state workers unions.
The impact of the decision, which would affect state workers
under Gov. Ed Rendell's jurisdiction, is even greater because of who else may gain benefits.
About 5,500 university professors employed at 14 state-related
universities have a clause written into their newly negotiated labor contract saying they will receive domestic-partner benefits
once they are offered to other state employees.
Republican representatives for House members Smith and Feese
attended the board's recent meeting after sources told them domestic-partner benefits would be discussed.
They did not comment publicly at the meeting, Leo said.
Because the fund is not a state agency, its meetings are usually
not open to the public, she said.
"An injunction was filed because we think the meetings should
be open, because the fund falls under the Sunshine Law [public meetings law], because it spends state dollars," said Stephen
Miskin, a spokesman for the House Republican Caucus.
Miskin said the fund spends more than $900 million of state
funds.
A decision on whether the board will have to open its meetings
is expected shortly, officials say.
"There have been previous court cases in Pennsylvania that have
decided this agency, because it is not a government agency even though it receives state funding, does have the authority
to have these negotiations in private," said Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission Chairman Stephen Glassman. "I expect
this case will also be decided in favor of this precedent."
When asked whether the fund had the authority to extend benefits
to state employees, without action from the legislature, Leo said she did not know of any law that prevented the board from
making benefit changes.
Miskin strongly disagreed.
He said Smith and many Republicans and Democrats believe that
an "obscure agency like that should not be making such big policy decisions."
The Legislature is the proper venue for such a policy to be
debated, Miskin said.
"Sam Smith thinks Ed Rendell was not elected emperor ... The
governor is trying to redefine marriage," Miskin said. "This would never happen if he didn't push the unions and his representatives
in the fund. It's Ed Rendell that is unilaterally trying to change law and as much as he would like to, he can't do."
Smith does not support spending state dollars on domestic partnerships,
unions that are not recognized by the state, Miskin said.
A spokeswoman for Rendell could not be reached by press time.
Glassman said the agency and the governor have the power to
provide domestic-partner benefits.
"Fundamentally, this is an issue of equal pay for equal work,
and it is unfair for l/g/b/t individuals to work side by side their counterparts, and earn fewer benefits for the same work,"
Glassman said. "Equal opportunity and equal benefits in the workplace in Pennsylvania are long overdue, it is simply good
business for the commonwealth to be as competitive as possible."
Leo said that although there are strong arguments on both sides
of the debate, the fund did not consider the politics of providing the benefits.
"We didn't consider any type of outside issues," Leo said. "We
provide benefits for state employees, but we're not a state agency, so at this point, we did not consider anything like that."
The board is comprised of seven union representatives and seven
management representatives appointed by Rendell. It meets every two months.
As Republican legislators await to hear if the fund will be
required to meet in public, Miskin said he is unsure what else will happen.
"The Legislature doesn't come back to voting session until September,"
Miskin said. "This issue could be taken up legislatively, or there could be a huge public outcry, but either way, a lot of
things could come out of this."
