The Vermont Civil Union Review Commission met on Tuesday, October 16, 2001, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 10 of the State House in Montpelier, Vermont.
The following members were present:
Stephen Reynes, Chair
Mary Kehoe, Vice-Chair
Martha Csala
Hon. Francis McCaffrey
Harvey Golubock
Rep. Thomas Little
Rep. William Lippert
Sen. John H. Bloomer, Jr.
Wendy YoderStaff Present:
Michele Childs, Commission Counsel
Katie Pickens, Commission AssistantThe minutes of September 18, 2001 were reviewed and approved.
Chair Stephen Reynes asked Michele Childs to update the commission since the last meeting. At the last meeting, the commission asked the Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities, and Health Care Administration to report to the commission on the potential impact of federal laws which affect continuation rights and limitations on preexisting conditions for civil union couples. Ms.Childs reported the department wasn’t able to have the information in time for this meeting, but it would prepare a memorandum in time for the next meeting in November. Ms. Childs will send the memo to commission members as soon as she receives it.
Ms. Childs distributed a list of the state agencies that received the letter she wrote on behalf of the commission requesting an update on steps the agencies have taken to implement the civil union law. Only 23% of the agencies have responded to date, and copies of the responses were distributed to commission members. Ms. Childs drew attention to the letter from the Department of Labor and Industry, which responded that it amended forms for the workers’ compensation program to add reciprocal beneficiaries. Ms. Childs will ask for further clarification from the department because workers’ compensation isn’t one of the benefits that reciprocal beneficiaries receive under the law. Most of the agencies have reported that the civil unions law has had little or no impact. Ms. Childs will send, on a weekly basis, copies of letters that are expected to arrive after this meeting. Commission members will call Ms. Childs if they have questions after reviewing the letters.
Ms Childs distributed a letter and materials from Leigh Tofferi, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, clarifying statements he made at the last meeting with regard to distribution of the costs of extending benefits to reciprocal partners. In preparation for Representative Flory’s presentation today on the reciprocal parternerships, Ms. Childs also distributed copies H.502, the reciprocal partnership bill which passed the House this year.
Chair Stephen Reynes led a commission discussion of plans for the November 13 meeting, which will be a work session to produce the commission’s report to legislature in January.
Commission members decided to meet from 9 a.m. to noon on November 13 for a half-day work session on the report to legislature. Ms. Childs asked for clear guidance from each commission member as to what each person would like to include in the report. Mr. Reynes asked that members e-mail their thoughts to Ms. Childs by Friday, November 9th.
The commission welcomed Representative Peg Flory, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and a sponsor of H.502, which repeals the civil unions law and replaces it with a system which provides marital benefits to same-sex couples and relatives. Rep. Flory explained that her primary purpose in sponsoring the bill is to extend benefits beyond gay couples. “Why not brothers, for example, as well as gay couples?” Ms. Flory formed her conclusions after speaking to at least a dozen people looking for the same benefits offered to civil unions couples. H.502 was drafted as a benefits bill, not a marriage bill. Rep. Flory disputed the assertion that a large number of people would enter into reciprocal beneficiaries relationships for the benefits, calling it unrealistic because there are responsibilities as well as benefits involved in such relationships. For example, if an 80 year-old woman entered into a reciprocal partnership with a grandson, the grandson may not want the responsibility of paying for a nursing home for the grandmother. Ms. Flory stated that no one has registered for reciprocal beneficiaries status to date because the public is unaware that it is available, and the benefits that can be currently obtained through a reciprocal beneficiaries relationship can be arranged through an attorney. Most people Rep. Flory spoke to were looking primarily for health care benefits and the ability to own property as tenants by the entirety.
Eileen Elliott, Commissioner of the Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition, and Health Access (PATH), distributed copies of the department’s response to the committee’s survey letter. Ms. Elliott provided a brief overview, explained the department has thus far served 13 same-sex couples and their families out of a client base of 120, and there has been little or no effect from the civil union law on the programs the department oversees: food stamps, Medicaid, fuel assistance, General Assistance, and Reach-up. The rules for the fuel program and Reach-up have been amended to include civil union couples. The only problem the department has encountered has been administering programs that are a combination of federal and state laws, and whether federal funds can be used for benefits to civil union couples. In the Medicare or long-term program, there have been no applications from civil union couples, so it has not been an issue. Many same-sex couples who have applied for benefits have found their joint incomes are too high to qualify them for programs.
Sally Fox, Family Court Operations, distributed a pamphlet on Vermont’s dispute resolution programs. The Family Court system has various mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, all of which are available to civil union couples. The number of civil unions couples that have come before the court is so small that it is not a burden on the system. There has been only one dissolution to date, compared with thousands of divorces during the same time period. There is no special initiative proposed at this time for alternative dispute resolutions specifically for same-sex couples.
The commission held a public comment period for couples who have obtained civil unions. Letters from Beth Robinson of Middlebury and from Stephen Swayne of Woodstock were distributed and read. The committee took testimony from the following individuals: Sam and Craig Abel-Palmer, Lois Farnham and Holly Putterbaugh, Tom Robinson and Brian Moore, and Elizabeth Novotny. The witnesses were asked to testify on the effect of their civil union on their lives and some of the benefits or responsibilities that are important to them. Some of the benefits include:
* The protection of a civil union has provided a measure of security for their family in times of instability.
* Legal status as parents greatly facilitates contact and communication with the public school system.
* Preschoolers are assured of the legitimacy of their parents union, which is important to their school experience and peace of mind.
* Commitment symbolized by the civil union creates stability.
* The civil union changed family dynamics by legitimizing the relationship in the minds of family members.
* The civil union created a new level of acceptance by family, co-workers, friends, and school officials
* They are able to refinance their homes more easily.
* They are able to receive bereavement leave.
* They are able to receive health insurance benefits.
* A civil union partner has the authority to make decisions about health care and burial of remains.
* Medical information for one can be given by the other partner in case of hospitalization.
* Being in a civil union communicates something more powerful than boyfriend or girlfriend, resulting in different treatment by others.
* A person in a civil union can legally list the partner as “next of kin” .
* A civil union legalizes the emotional commitment.
The commission determined the next meeting would focus on drafting the report to the legislature. Each member will submit by e-mail to Ms Childs by November 9, his or her input on the report. Ms. Childs will continue to mail the late survey responses from agencies to committee members.
The next meetings of the Commission will be Tuesday, November 13, 2001, in the Room 11 of the State House.
Respectfully submitted,
Michele Childs
Legislative Counsel