Who will hold the universities accountable?
Op-Ed by Kent Ostrander

In light of the controversial implementation of domestic partner benefit plans by the University of Kentucky, it’s important that each of us as citizens review the process that led the Board of Trustees to authorize an unconstitutional policy and that has resulted in a great deal of political wrangling.

It is abundantly clear that the benefit plans announced at the meeting of the Board on April 24 violated the Marriage Protection Amendment that Kentucky citizens overwhelmingly ratified in 2004. What is unclear is why the Board was denied the opinion of Prof. Carolyn Bratt, UK’s distinguished law professor, who pronounced as early as 2004 with clarity that “. . . this amendment would prohibit state and local government and their various agencies from voluntarily extending health insurance coverage to the families of unmarried employees whether those employees are in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships.”

This critical omission allowed the University, and the Board of Trustees in particular, to be used as a battering ram against policy that was established by the members of the General Assembly and by the people in 2004.

Had Trustees heard from Prof. Bratt, they likely would have exercised more caution before they proceeded, asking the Attorney General for his opinion prior to acting.  Of course, on June 1 Attorney General Greg Stumbo clarified that UK’s plan did, in fact, violate the Constitution.  It is important to note that both Prof. Bratt and the Attorney General are same-sex marriage advocates so their legal opinions contrary to the plan are not based in any bias.

It is also unfortunate that the administration denied the Trustees the opportunity to review the revised “Sponsored Dependent” plan at the June 13 meeting of the Board. Evidently, those who decided not to inform them of Bratt’s legal opinion also decided to authorize the revised plan as an “executive decision,” thus stripping the Board of its authority to represent the citizens of Kentucky and keeping Trustees out of an “unconstitutionality” discussion.

At the June 8 subcommittee meeting of the Board, this revised plan was “not ready” for discussion. Again, it was not ready for the meeting of the full Board on June 13. But it was completely ready and on the UK web site on the morning of June 18 – two working days later.

Surely, if the Trustees had been given the opportunity to review the “Sponsored Dependent” plan on June 13, they would have concluded that opening the health plan to live-in lovers and roommates but denying it to family members – mothers, grandchildren and sisters – and part-time employees is neither fair nor wise.  And they would have been able to discuss the constitutionality issue.

Unfortunately, the plan is still unconstitutional. The Attorney General’s June 1 opinion concluded that denying relatives the benefits violated the Constitution.

Even though the majority of Trustees are not Fletcher appointees, the Governor has seen fit to add the domestic partner issue to the Special Session — further highlighting the need for responsible scrutiny during the genesis of such controversial policies.

With tuition having more than doubled at UK in the last few years and yet with retirement benefits for employees being cut for those to whom they were promised, there are more pressing priorities for UK than pursuing unconstitutional policies pushed by special-interest advocates.

If the University truly wants to attract the best and the brightest, raise salaries for everyone.  That improves the institution’s attractiveness to ALL applicants, not just “partner” applicants as the current strategy targets.  In addition, it would allow the employee to purchase whatever coverage for whomever he or she chooses. Plus it would be constitutional, evidently a minor consideration.

It is time – no, it’s past time – to press those in the administration who serve the Board to a greater level of candor and transparency.  Now, because they didn’t serve the Board faithfully, the legislature must step in.