Wilson Fights Benefits for Partners of UC Employees

The last issue that prompted Gov. Pete Wilson to take his seat with the University of California Board of Regents was the ban on affirmative action programs that became a launching pad for the governor’s presidential campaign.

Today, just as his name is resurfacing as a potential White House contender in 2000, Wilson is heading back to the board to force another highly controversial vote--this time to block health and housing benefits for gay partners of university employees.

Wilson told the regents in a letter Wednesday that the benefits would conflict with existing state policy and would “spotlight the University of California as a role model for undermining marriage and destabilizing families.”

Aides said the governor considers the issue of such significance that he will attend a committee meeting on the subject at UCLA today and a hearing before the full board there on Friday.

It is only the fourth time Wilson has attended an official regents board meeting since his 1994 reelection. All three previous visits were for votes involving affirmative action.

This time, the governor’s action has again prompted critics to complain that he is using the university system for his own political purpose. In the process, they worry that he is risking the reputation and the academic independence of one of the most prestigious public university systems in the nation.

“Pete Wilson is running for president at the expense of the university once again,” charged Democratic Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, who also serves as a regent. “It’s another huge diversion that will bring nothing but controversy and ill will to the university.”

Conspicuously, Wilson will square off on the benefits issue this week against the regent who championed his push for the affirmative action ban.

Ward Connerly, a Wilson appointee and longtime friend, supports the granting of benefits to gay partners as necessary to keep UC competitive with other universities. Connerly said he believes his opposition to affirmative action and support for such benefits are consistent stands against discrimination.

“People used to say the same thing about blacks and whites who married--that it was immoral,” Connerly said. “And we have learned that Western civilization didn’t collapse when people of different races or colors marry.”

Wilson has also lost the support of some of his other appointees, who make up nearly one-third of the 26-member board. The result has made the vote difficult to predict and has prompted some to suggest that the governor will lose.

On Wednesday, Wilson named a new board member to fill a vacancy, leading observers to speculate that he is trying to improve his chances on the benefits vote.

University rules allow the new member, Ralph M. Ochoa, to be seated as a voting regent immediately even though the state Senate has up to a year to confirm or reject his selection.

Ochoa is expected to win Senate approval, however, because he is a Democrat. He also is a bit of a surprising choice for Wilson because he opposed Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action ballot measure the governor promoted last year.

*

In 1994, Ochoa was head of the Democrats for Wilson committee. He also served previously as a UCLA alumni representative to the Board of Regents. If approved, he will be Wilson’s eighth appointee on the 26-member board. Seven others were appointed by former Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, one by former Democratic Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr., and eight more serve--like Wilson--as ex officio members designated by their office. There are still two vacancies.

Ochoa said Wednesday that he was undecided on the benefits issue and has never discussed it with the governor. Wilson adminsitration officials insisted that they do not know his position.

What is clear is that he will join a board in the midst of a fight that most of his new colleagues had hoped to avoid. Many believe the university system is still too fragile for another battle over an emotionally charged social issue.

Since the 1995 vote to end race and gender as factors in student admissions, the university system has lost five of its chancellors--several of whom cited the affirmative action vote as a catalyst in their decisions. The leading faculty organization has also formally rebuked its leadership and campuses have been rocked for two years by student protests.

Today, the legacy of that vote is being blamed for shrinking diversity in the student ranks, with critics alleging that it is scaring away minority candidates.

With such strains still troubling the system, the regents tried last September to bypass another wrenching debate by leaving the decision about benefits to UC President Richard C. Atkinson.

Atkinson was planning to offer health benefits to gay couples and allow each of UC’s nine campuses to decide whether they would provide married-student housing to same-sex couples. The president’s plan would require that the partners have lived together for at least a year, provide proof of mutual financial support and commit to an exclusive long-term relationship.

Atkinson was persuaded by faculty and staff that the issue was one of fairness for gays and lesbians and that, without the benefits, the university would be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining top faculty.

But, with Wilson’s encouragement, Regent John Davies insisted that the board take a vote on the benefits issue on the grounds that it is a policy decision that belongs with the university’s governing body, not an administrator.

“The university is not a private institution,” Wilson wrote Wednesday. “Despite the great amount of autonomy the board enjoys . . . the university remains a state governmental entity and . . . a public trust.”

Wilson said in his letter that there is no evidence this issue will create a competitive disadvantage.

He also warned that the benefits could set a costly precedent for the state, prompting lawsuits from unmarried heterosexual couples who demand the same treatment. The governor said the ripples could extend to employees throughout state government.

Just last month, he noted, an unmarried heterosexual couple won such a claim against the city of Oakland, where health benefits are provided to same-sex partners.

UC officials estimate that it will cost $1.9 million to $5.6 million a year to provide medical, dental and vision care to same-sex partners of its employees and retirees. That is on top of the university’s $400-million employee benefits budget.

The same-sex benefits issue was first raised at UC in the late 1980s. Since then, many colleges and universities, both public and private--including Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, the University of Michigan and the State University of New York at Buffalo--have added benefit packages that include gay couples.

*

The issue also has been forced on UC regents recently by the city of San Francisco, which has $60 million in contracts with the university and a policy that requires its contractors to provide equal benefits for all employees--including same-sex couples.

UC San Francisco representatives, who provide the medical staff for San Francisco General Hospital and other health services, have been in quiet discussions with city leaders for months.

“There has been no ultimatum by the city regarding the contract,” said UC San Francisco spokesman Bill Gordon. “Regardless of the regents’ decision, we expect the discussions will continue.”

Since dropping out of the last presidential race in 1995, Wilson has said he maintains a possible interest in the 2000 contest. Lately he has encouraged speculation by giving a few highly political speeches to Republican activists.

At a meeting of the Christian Coalition earlier this month, his biggest applause line was about his veto this summer of a gay rights bill. Despite those cheers, however, this is not an issue on which Wilson has always sided with conservatives.

In 1992, he signed a bill prohibiting job and housing discrimination against homosexuals. The year before he had referred to opponents of a similar bill as a “tiny minority of mean-spirited, gay-bashing bigots.”

Today, Wilson aides said the governor still opposes job or housing discrimination against gays but he does not consider employee benefits to be an area for similar protections.

The Controversy at a Glance

The Issue: Whether the University of California should extend medical, dental and vision-care benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.

Cost: UC officials estimate that the extended benefits would add $1.9 million to $5.6 million a year to the $400 million now spent annually on employee health care. The university has no way to gauge how many of its 128,000 employees and retirees would seek benefits for same-sex partners.

Arguments For: UC students, faculty and staff and Regent Ward Connerly say it’s unfair to offer health benefits to employees’ spouses but not to same-sex partners whom they cannot legally marry. Proponents also say UC is at a disadvantage in recruiting and retaining talented faculty because many competing schools offer such benefits.

Arguments Against: Gov. Pete Wilson says the university, as a state institution, should follow state policy, which does not allow for such benefits for its employees. He also says the university could be forced to extend the benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, making it much more expensive. And giving benefits to unmarried partners, he said, would do “serious damage to the institutions of marriage and the family.”