A quorum being present, President Clyde Anglin called the meeting of the University of Georgia Staff Council (UGA-SC) to order at 2:07 p.m.  Present were Annette Hatton and Gilbert Head from Academic Affairs; Doris Bombich, Jeannie Dawson, Hector Dudley, Jim Graham, Leslie Jones for Marilyn Huff-Waller, and Donna Wyatt from Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; Robyn Ansley and Beth Richardson from Arts and Sciences; Arthur Bastidas, Janet Bjornlie, Joe Cochran for Darlene Bradley, Henry Bridges, Maria Kuhn for Wes Kolar, Frank Patman, and Chris Baker for Esther Sherman from Business and Finance; Anita Miller from the College of Education; Shea Shumake from Family and Consumer Sciences; Sue Anthony from Forest Resources; Courtney Bell for Betty Blum from the Graduate School; Merrill Edens from the College of Journalism and Mass Communication; Kathy Burkes from the Law School; Stephanie Watson representing Legal Affairs, the Office of the President, and the Equal Opportunity Office; Jalna Alday from the College of Pharmacy; Ruby Heaton and Margo Peter from Public Service and Outreach (Margot had to leave early and was superseded by Ben Rice); Sally Kroehnke and Ian Gray from Research; Michael Albert from Student Affairs; Elizabeth Pape from the Terry College of Business; Tony Hughey and Penny Gibbs for Allison Wright from the College of Veterinary Medicine; Brenda Keen, Secretary; and Mary Cash, Parliamentarian. Linda Dudley, representative to the University System Staff Council, was also present.  There was no representative from Environmental Design or the School of Social Work.

There being no objections, the minutes from the November meeting were not read and were approved as written.

Clyde asked if there was any objection to departing from the usual sequence of the agenda in order for Vice President for Legal Affairs Bryndis Roberts, who had time constraints, to address the group.  There being none, she was introduced to the council.

VP Roberts said she wanted to give a few minutes of contextual information and then answer questions.  She said the basic point to start from is recognizing the University of Georgia is one of 34 state institutions governed by the Board of Regents. That's important because, while the Board of Regents has given UGA autonomy in a wide range of areas, it has retained control over a very substantial number of areas.  In prior discussions with the Needs and Concerns and Executive committees, she has talked about that point.  Both health insurance and sick leave are managed by the Board of Regents, so UGA would have no ability whatsoever to change those things.  That would require action on the part of the Board of Regents.  There are other things, such as the use of facilities, that arguably—and that's a very important point—would be within the university's control.  So arguably then, UGA would have the ability to make policy or change policies affecting those things.  That was the first contextual point to be made.Her second point was the final authority on the legality of anything in Georgia is the state Supreme Court.  For state institutions, the Attorney General's office can issue an official opinion, but those opinions are not law.  They're binding on state institutions and state agencies; but they are not law, and the Supreme Court can agree or disagree.  VP Roberts noted the Attorney General's office is the official representative for all of the 34 institutions, so her comments were based on her understanding of where that office would stand on an issue.

The third point was anything that Staff Council proposes would have to go to President Adams, and he could choose to send whatever was proposed through University Council as well.  Having made those points, VP Roberts asked for questions.

Elizabeth Pape asked if there is a procedure for Staff Council to recommend that some area within the university propose something to the Board of Regents.  VP Roberts replied the President would be the person to whom such a recommendation would go, or possibly Faculty Affairs or another appropriate committee dealing with similar issues within University Council.  Elizabeth asked if it were feasible that President Adams could support something that came from Staff Council to the Board of Regents.  VP Roberts said it is feasible, but she could not speak for Dr. Adams.

Ruby Heaton asked how the legislature and the Attorney General's office fit in the statement that the state Supreme Court is the final authority on legality.  VP Roberts explained the legislature passes laws, but the state Supreme Court interprets laws and determines whether those laws are constitutional.  If the Supreme Court ruled a statute was unconstitutional, the legislature would have to decide if they want to propose a referendum and have the people of Georgia vote on changing the constitution.  The Attorney General's office is the official representative for the executive branch of government, and the Board of Regents is an executive agency.  The Attorney General's office defends executive agencies and also issues official opinions.  Those opinions are binding on those agencies, but they don't constitute law.  So private citizens don't have to view them as law, and the Supreme Court would not be bound by them.

Margot Peter said someone told her that, by signing the Loyalty Oath, if she supported a resolution such as Mr. Albert's previous one she would be in jeopardy of losing her job because she was supporting something that was illegal in the state of Georgia.  She asked to know VP Roberts' feelings on that.  VP Roberts said to her understanding the Loyalty Oath has to do with activities designed to overthrow the government by violent means, so in her opinion, Margot's job would not be in jeopardy.

Michael Albert thanked VP Roberts for the time, energy, work, and patience she had put into this difficult issue.   He asked if, over the course of the process, she had seen anything illegal in the proposals that had been drafted.  She replied that Mr. Albert's question gets to the difficulty she was trying to address as to who would be the final person to comment on legality, certainly depending on who is in the Attorney General's office.  When Mr. Bowers was there, anything that had been proposed he would have said could not be done.  She said she does not know Mr. Baker's position, as she has not discussed it with him or heard him make any public comments.  As to the question on the word "illegal," sometimes the answer depends on who is being questioned.  She pointed out that in prior discussions she had said previous proposals would have been viewed by Mr. Bowers as being illegal.

Michael asked if, given that the Supreme Court has determined domestic partnership as carried out by the City of Atlanta is not in conflict with law or public policy, VP Roberts could comment on where that leaves this process.  She replied her view is that she's not sure it has a lot of impact on this process at all.  The City of Atlanta is a municipality; that case was interpreting the Home Rule Act, which gives municipalities certain powers.  UGA is not a municipality; it is a state agency.  She said in her mind that case really has very little to do with what UGA can do, considering the university is managed by the Board of Regents.

Michael said clearly the Supreme Court has acted to say "Atlanta you can't step over certain boundaries," because various parts of the domestic partnership issue have been struck down in the past.  So there's the Home Rule issue and then there's what anybody can do that's in direct conflict to law or public policy.  By ruling in Atlanta's favor, while it doesn't necessarily say UGA can do this now, does it not say that the issue of domestic partnership as an entity, when properly worded, is not in conflict with state law or public policy?  VP Roberts replied she doesn't think it says that.  She said the last decision issued by the Supreme Court turned on the definition of dependency.  If you look at that definition, it doesn't talk about domestic partnership or use that language; it talks about one who depends on another for support.  The Supreme Court looked at the principle of statutory construction and said that definition fell within the usual and common meaning of the word "dependent."  She said she doesn't think one can jump from that decision and say the Supreme Court has given some sort of blessing, as it were, to domestic partnership.  She said it probably gives people who support the resolution a little bit more ammunition and they can certainly say "look what the Supreme Court did in Atlanta," but it is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges.  Michael asked if one could say the Supreme Court did validate Atlanta's definition of dependency and Atlanta's ordinances.  VP Roberts replied she didn't know whether she would say they "validated" them; they found that they did not contravene the authority in the Home Rule Act.  She said she didn't think that's just a semantic difference; it's a big difference.

Annette Hatton said since 1991 the university has had an antidiscrimination policy regarding sexual orientation.  She noted Michael Bowers had been in office during that time, up until recently.  She said she understood the university had operated in grievances under this policy, so in a sense we have a policy that on some level might be seen to be in direct opposition to Michael Bowers' interpretation of the law.  She asked VP Roberts to comment on that.

VP Roberts said she had two comments.  Yes, we have had that policy; it was adopted by University Council and approved by President Knapp.  No one asked either the Board of Regents or Mr. Bowers their opinions of that policy.  She said if that question had been asked, at least of Mr. Bowers, she was sure what the answer would have been.  She said she thought the university was basically "flying under the radar" with respect to that policy.  Unfortunately the Staff Council resolution is on every radar screen there is, so there's no such thing as flying under the radar anymore.  She said in one of the grievances that went forward under that policy, the question we got from the Board of Regents was "How could you adopt such a policy?"  And we said we have it and this guy's grieving under it, and we avoided that bullet, but basically we were flying under the radar screen and that policy was worded very carefully to talk only about those things over which the university had control.

Annette Hatton said that this resolution, even as now revised, only deals with this university; and while it may be on everybody's radar screen, it does still have the same boundaries that the antidiscrimination policy has.  VP Roberts noted she hasn't read the last version, but presuming even if it does stay within the same boundaries, her point is from a practical matter, since everyone now knows what has been proposed.  If something got adopted there could very well be a reaction from the Attorney General's office or the Board of Regents or the General Assembly.

Michael Albert said first the president would have to consider it.  VP Roberts said she thought there could be reactions even before the president considered it.  In January the legislature will be in session.  We're on everybody's radar screen with this, and she thinks anything that Staff Council proposes in this area will be scrutinized and is liable to get all sorts of reaction.  She emphasized she was not saying that to suggest people shouldn't vote the way they feel, but that's one of the practicalities of dealing in this area.  The university was not under that same kind of scrutiny in 1991 when the nondiscrimination policy was adopted.

Elizabeth Pape asked if there was a problem with having a policy which won't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.  VP Roberts replied the problem is that most of the policies that we have are based on state and federal law.  Basically state and federal law say that you can't discriminate against people because of race; so we have university policy.  It is the same with sex, age, disability, and veteran status.  With sexual orientation, there is no state law in Georgia and there is no federal law that prohibits discrimination on that basis.  So we were really stepping out ahead of state and federal law; but the decision to adopt that policy was made because we concluded that at UGA we didn't think that it was appropriate to make decisions or not make decisions based on someone's sexual orientation.  So that is why we adopted that policy.  But we didn't seek any blessings or permission or whatever from the Board of Regents or the Attorney General's office; and again, based on some of the comments that have been made, she would imagine that had we sought any advice, particularly from Mr. Bowers, we would have been told that we probably couldn't do that.

Penny Gibbs asked what kind of reaction VP Roberts expects to see or thinks might happen.  VP Roberts replied she does not know; it depends on the content of the policy and on the coverage.  Penny asked what kinds of reactions are legal and whether we could expect them to say "no more Staff Council."  VP Roberts said that's a difficult question.  Currently resolutions could be put in to the General Assembly to censure Staff Council; somebody could do that if they wanted to.  Whether that would pass with enough votes she doesn't know.  On a less up-front level, those kinds of issues could be considered as the appropriations bills are being looked at in the wee hours of the night.  All people take their own particular biases and prejudices with them no matter what they do.  If something like this is adopted in the middle of the legislative session, we're being rather naive if we don't think that there could be some reactions to it in the state of Georgia in 1998.
Michael asked if making a recommendation to the president of this university as a resolution through Staff Council could ever be considered illegal.  The reply was that it depends on the recommendation.  If you're recommending that we secede from the state, it might be.  VP Roberts noted she wasn't trying to be flip, but broad-based questions cover everything.  Elizabeth Pape and Margot Peter asked how a proposal could be illegal, since proposing something and doing it are different.  VP Roberts said there is freedom of speech, but urging the president to take an action that would be illegal is problematic.  She said she's not sure what they were asking and wondered whether they were asking if they could be fired or be disciplined for doing this.  She asked for clarification of the question.  It's much too broad a question to say "can something ever be considered illegal?"  It depends on who is doing the considering.  That's why lawyers get paid lots of dollars an hour to argue both sides of an issue.

Michael said he'd be happy to clarify the question.  It's been suggested through the course of this process that the resolution itself in its previous form was illegal.  It was tabled on the basis of illegality and it was discussed on the basis of legality.  He would like to put to rest in the minds of fellow Staff Council members that legality is an issue here when it comes to our recommendation to the president.  VP Roberts said she didn't think it could be put to rest, for the reasons she had said: legality is on a spectrum and depending on what a resolution says, there are going to be some people who are going to say "it is illegal."  There will be others who are going to say "it is not illegal."  And there are going to be people all along the spectrum.  So she didn't think unless the Supreme Court itself came down and said "we have reviewed this proposal and we think that it is legal" that you can put those concerns to rest.

Joe Cochran asked if he came into this room and shouted "fire" and everyone gets up and starts through the door; if Henry is knocked down and trampled on, is he legally culpable for damages because Henry was injured?  VP Roberts said the Supreme Court has said you can't shout "fire" in a crowded building for no reason, but she was not sure she saw the analogy in Joe's question.

Frank Patman noted VP Roberts has been involved with the resolution for the past year and a half.  The resolution has been back for rewording.  He asked if, in her opinion, the resolution that was tabled earlier is in violation of the Georgia Sodomy Law.  She replied she hopes everyone appreciates the definition of "sodomy," because probably a lot more people are in violation of the Georgia statute than we know.  She said she thinks you have to presume that anyone in any relationship is in fact engaging in sexual activity in order to presume that they're in violation of the sodomy law.  There are relationships where people, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to engage in sexual activities; so that subset of people would not be in violation of the sodomy law.  The argument with respect to the sodomy law really grows out of the case Hardwick v. Bowers and also the case where Mr. Bowers withdrew the [job] offer to the lesbian attorney Ms. Shahar.  Basically Mr. Bowers argued in the second case that because his office was charged with the responsibility of upholding state laws, including the sodomy law, he couldn't have anyone on his staff who was openly breaking that law because it would call into question the ability of his office to enforce that law.  She noted whatever you think about that argument, one point she would have to make is the sodomy statute includes a lot of things other than just homosexual sex.  So if you're going to make that argument then you're really going to have to be policing a lot of married people's homes to make sure they are not doing anything that's in violation of the sodomy law.  She said she doesn't think one can say yes or no to Frank's question; one has to make some presumption.

VP Roberts continued by saying if Staff Council tried to pass a resolution that recognized same-sex relationships and put them on the same par as marriages, she thought that would be in violation of the following state law:

Official Code of Georgia §19-3-3.1—Marriages between persons of same sex prohibited; marriages not recognized.  (a) It is declared to be the public policy of this state to recognize the unions only of man and woman.  Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.  (b) No marriage between persons of the same sex shall be recognized as entitled to the benefits of marriage.  Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex pursuant to a marriage license issued by another state or foreign jurisdiction or otherwise shall be void in this state.  Any contractual rights granted by virtue of such license shall be unenforceable in the courts of this state and the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever under any circumstances to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to such marriage, or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such marriage.

This statute was adopted in 1996 as part of  what was called "The Defense of Marriage Act."  It was around the same time that common-law marriages were done away with and some other changes were made.  So to the extent Staff Council or any other university group or state group attempted to enact a provision that basically put a same-sex relationship or a same-sex commitment on the same par as a marriage, that would be in violation of this state law.  An interesting thing is this law doesn't say anything about what happens if one violates it; but that's just something the General Assembly did not put in there.

A visitor, Hal Turner from the School of Law, asked if she could articulate how marriage has been defined, noting it must require more than a library card or photo i.d.  VP Roberts said her point was—and said she wasn't speaking to the revised resolution, but as a follow-up to Mr. Patman's question about whether something would violate the sodomy law—that if a provision was adopted that attempted to put a same-sex relationship on the same par as marriage, then that would clearly be in violation of the law.  She wasn't speaking to library cards and all those other things.  She stated that the last time she looked at her old marriage license, it didn't talk about that either.

Michael asked how that law applies to anybody passing domestic partnership provisions.  For example, if Atlanta's policy infringed upon the law just mentioned, which it previously did, the Supreme Court would look at it and did strike down portions.  In the current wording, the Supreme Court stated that the Atlanta domestic partner policy is clearly not in violation.  VP Roberts said she didn't think it said clearly.  She said the way they defined dependents was in keeping with the common, usual definition of that word, and their ability to define dependent in that way was within their scope of authority under the Home Rule Act.

Michael said at this point we need to look at this resolution, because it takes into account a lot of what has happened and references the Atlanta ordinance.  He said he feels like this conversation is putting in the minds of people that, by giving people library cards or whatever we might do here, it might somehow elevate same-sex relationships and call it marriage.  VP Roberts noted the original resolution was a paraphrase of the University of Chicago's or some school's that basically recognized domestic partnerships, and all the benefits that would go to married people would have flown to people in domestic partnerships.  She reiterated she meant the very first draft they looked at; none of the things discussed in any of these meetings did that, and the first draft is the one that she told Michael clearly we can't even try.  Michael said when this resolution is presented, he thought someone would suggest it be tabled again because it needs some kind of further consideration.  He asked VP Roberts if she would be willing to take a look at the new resolution.  She replied if Staff Council requests that she look at the resolution she will do so.

Donna Wyatt asked about the guidelines the university currently uses to define dependents.  She said she thinks it's married spouses and children 18 and under, or 24 if they're in school.  VP Roberts said that's right.  Donna asked if those are determined by the Board of Regents.  VP Roberts replied, with respect to the insurance, our insurance cards now say University System of Georgia health benefits plan.  When she first came to the university in ‘87, we had our own separate plan and possibly one might argue that we could have changed things under our own separate plan.  We are now under the same plan as the rest of the people in the university system.  As she understands it—and we would need to get people from the benefits office to come talk about some of these issues—the Board of Regents is where those definitions emanate from; and they probably rely pretty heavily on Blue Cross Blue Shield since that's the company that administers the plan.

VP Roberts went on to say there are a number of things at the university that talk in terms of "spouses" and "dependents," such as the language of the UGA Card and others.  Whether or not we could define those terms at the university, there would be an argument that this is not governed by the Board of Regents.  The Board of Regents has policies and procedures about sick leave and family and medical leave, so put that aside and say we can't touch that.  Looking at this smaller circle of things that are not governed by the Board of Regents, one can argue that we would have the authority, if we wanted to, to change those definitions.  But it is very important to recognize that that position is just an argument.  Even though traditionally those things have been within our authority, whether the Board of Regents, the Attorney General's office, or the General Assembly would feel we could do that, she simply doesn't know.  And we are not analogous to the City of Atlanta.  Atlanta is a municipality; it is not the same thing.  We can argue that the Board of Regents can delegate this responsibility to us, as it has historically said "these are institutional issues, y'all deal with that, we really don't care who gets a library card at UGA ."  We can argue that we ought to be able to define those things.  Whether other people will agree with this, she doesn't know.  She said when she initially got involved with this, she hoped to do something similar to what had been done back in 1991 with the University Council:  to craft something that may not go as far as people wanted it to go, but that was very much within whatever authority that one could argue that the university had, so we wouldn't get in a big fuss about it.  Clearly we've not been successful in doing that.

Joe Cochran asked whether he understood her to say that comparing the university and the City of Atlanta was like comparing apples and oranges, and what was applicable with one would not necessarily be applicable at the other.  VP Roberts agreed she did say that and that she went on to say what the Supreme Court decided is that under the Home Rule Act, the City of Atlanta had certain authority and within that it could define "dependent."  The definition it chose to use was in keeping with the ordinary meaning of that word; the Supreme Court said that definition is within their authority, so they upheld the latest version of the ordinance.  Taking that, one can argue and say "although the University of Georgia is not a municipality, so you're not talking about the Home Rule Act, there are things that have historically been left up to the university to manage."  And within those things, arguably, we have the authority to change definitions so as to expand the people who can use services—arguably.  But no one's ever asked the Regents this question and she doesn't know what their answer would be.

Annette Hatton reminded the council that not long ago it was illegal for one group of people to drink from another group's drinking fountain.  That was state law here and in a number of other states, and there were many laws that were connected to that kind of thing.  That's the same thing here.  It is a question of one group being able to have access to the same benefits, however narrowly defined.  That is all that is being asked.  And though the realities of the state and the realities of the university bumping up into state law exist, she wanted to remind everyone of that situation.  Joe Cochran said she should not equate sexuality with race; Annette responded she will relate sexuality with race.  Joe asked if she heard what VP Roberts said about  the laws of the nation and the laws of the state.  Clyde reminded Joe we were here to direct questions to Ms. Roberts.  VP Roberts said Annette didn't have a question; it was a statement, so she had no comment about that except to say, if we look at the Civil Rights Movement, that a lot of energy in that movement was aimed at changing those laws.  So one question might be "is starting with a proposal in the university Staff Council where this battle needs to be waged?"  But that's not a question for her to answer, that's just a question to ask.

A visitor, Tom Payton from the Georgia Press, asked if VP Roberts could recommend language, such as using a word for sponsorship or dependent, that would not elevate this to the level of same-sex marriages; whether there was language that would pass muster.  She replied she honestly doesn't know, because there is such a difference between a state entity as we are and a municipality that she thinks there are other issues besides just defining the word dependent.  So she doesn't know that she could come up with any such language.  She said if it is the will of Staff Council to do something like that, then where we are today with this proposal and where we are on the radar screen, she thinks we would have to get Regent's clearance anyway.  She said she thinks the Attorney General's office would need to be involved in drafting whatever we wanted to draft.

A visitor, Lois Morrison from the Vet School, noted the Georgia Athletic Association has always used the phrase "spouse or guest" on their ticket sales.  She asked if someone who is married, and therefore has a spouse or dependent children, can bring a guest to a football game, can that sort of thing be expanded?  VP Roberts said the Athletic Association is a private entity, so it could probably say a number of things that we don't say; but she has never seen that form so she doesn't know what it says.

Michael asked the chair if it would be in order at this time to pass out the draft of the reworded resolution, not to bring it to the table but so members could see it for reference.  He said he had listened with great interest to every Staff Council member who had voiced an opinion, to all the recommendations and suggestions, and took into account what happened to Mr. Turner and Mr. Taylor after leaving this meeting and what happened with them in their religious ceremony.  He took all those things into account to create new language and looked at the statute from the Atlanta ordinance, which was definitely very careful.  He asked to pass out the draft resolution so people can look at it as they are directing their questions.  Clyde said he would not rule that out of order, but he would ask whether there were any objections to that.

Mary Cash said she had an objection based upon the fact that Staff Council had asked VP Roberts here to address this assembly and VP Roberts clearly stated she would address the assembly on the issues that we asked her to address.  Mary said she has done that and Mary didn't think it is fair to her to bring up this resolution at this time.  Mary had no objection to Staff Council bringing it up during the regular meeting; however, Mary felt we would be doing Dr. Roberts a disfavor or a disservice by bringing that up when she especially asked that this would not be what she was going to be covering.  VP Roberts said she had to leave at 3:10.  She said she appreciated Mary's comments and if people asked her questions to which she doesn't know the answer, she could always say "I don't know."  So if it would facilitate discussion and perhaps prevent Staff Council from having to listen to her again, she had no problem with that.  Clyde asked for a show of hands on whether the assembly wished the information to be passed around.  The majority voted to pass out copies of the new resolution.

While the copies were being distributed, someone asked about access to the Ramsey Center being limited to dependents under age 19.  VP Roberts noted that is probably not a question of legality, it is a question of policy.  She thinks Dwight Douglas and the people who manage the Ramsey Center are going to want to look the financial ramifications of any proposal that Staff Council or anybody else makes to expand the number of people who use the Ramsey Center.  Those of us who use the Ramsey Center know that there are times when it is crowded to the gills right now.  She thinks any proposal that expands use beyond that is not so much a question of legality as whether that facility—which was financed with student funds and we all need to remember that—can take care of all these extra people.

VP Roberts said that's also an issue when we're talking about library cards.  We have to remember the mission of the university.  In her view, the students and services to the students have to take precedence over services to spouses and dependents or whatever of faculty and staff members.  If by broadening the scope of people who can use these facilities we're going to be impacting the ability of students to use them, she personally sees that as problematic, not necessarily from a legal point of view, but from a policy point of view.  She said she's sure the people who run those facilities would have a lot more to say about that than she would.  In terms of the benefits, she doesn't know if anyone has put any questions to Carlton [James, Associate VP of Human Resources] and his people as to whether any sort of expansion would have any financial implications on that end of the spectrum as well.

Joe Cochran said he would like to respond to an earlier question.  He said a year and a half ago, when Michael first brought this forward, we [the Executive Committee] suggested alternate terminology.  One of the things suggested was "designated beneficiary."  He said this new resolution almost gives us this; the only hangup people in Physical Plant will have is in the last sentence: "domestic partners."  He asked why can't we pass a resolution that says "designated beneficiary" that everybody benefits from and put this behind us.  Clyde said he appreciated Joe's pointing that out and said there would be opportunity to discuss the resolution in the unfinished business portion of the meeting.

Michael Albert said during the process the Executive Committee did give many recommendations, upon which the Needs and Concerns Committee felt its hands were tied, because there was no precedent.  He said he just wanted to point out that since the Supreme Court's decision, things have changed a lot because Atlanta's definitions set a precedent.  Now the Needs and Concerns Committee feels we have a resolution that is broader and includes a lot more people.  He said this was never a focus on gay and lesbian issues, although it has become one; but it even goes beyond that now and we're proud to be able to do that.

Clyde said he thought this was getting close to discussing the resolution which will be brought up in unfinished business, and he did not wish to do that at this point as it is out of order.  He asked if there were any further questions for VP Roberts, noting she would be leaving shortly.

Penny Gibbs asked whether earlier VP Roberts had intimated she thought if people who supported this resolution actually tried to change state law, regardless of what we do here, that would be a better approach.  VP Roberts clarified that she said the question could be asked would that not be an approach.  Penny asked how one approaches it on that level as an individual.  The reply was, as an individual, you are represented by your state representative and you write that person.

Clyde pointed out there are those in this assembly who were actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  He said he was probably not the only person in the room who was arrested in this town for participating in civil rights activities.  That's a struggle that occurred then, whether that's applicable now; but that's the kind of individual, personal decision that one has to make as to just how far they will go, and civil disobedience is part of it.

Ian Gray asked whether VP Roberts believes this belongs in the political arena.  She replied she was not sure she could say that.  To the extent that this proposal or earlier versions of this proposal had genesis in a desire to sort of "open the door" as it were, she wondered whether the amount of energy that has been expended on it here at the university perhaps couldn't have had more effect if it were expended at another level.  Noting those are choices that people have to make, she said she really just asked that question.

Clyde asked the council to express its appreciation to VP Roberts and everyone applauded. VP Roberts left the meeting. Clyde said he would like to lay some ground rules for the meeting, noting he was quite liberal in allowing visitors who are not voting members of Staff Council to address VP Roberts.  He said from this point on, we will be conducting official business for Staff Council and told visitors please ask to be recognized or ask a Staff Council member to request their recognition if they wish to comment at any point during the proceedings.

TREASURER'S REPORT

Janet Bjornlie said there was no change and the balance remains $391.60.  Clyde repeated his statement from the last meeting that he would ask the president's office for replacement of money that will be spent on the five-year commemoration to defray expenses.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Clyde presented information concerning a petition brought to the Executive Committee that was distributed in the College of Veterinary Medicine soliciting input from staff there as to whether they were or were not in favor of the previous [benefits expansion] proposal.  There was concern that the opinion of the staff might not be reflected in a vote in Staff Council.  That may be an opinion that is campus-wide, and it is important information; as to whether it would change anybody's vote or not, the result is going to be a matter of conscience.  The petition was worded thus: "Are you in favor or not in favor of domestic partners or same-sex partners receiving staff benefits at the University of Georgia?"  It was a signed petition, and there were 23 yes and 69 no.  It was requested that be entered into the record, and it is now so done.

Michael asked Clyde to request the scientific methodology for which the petition was issued.  Clyde responded he had no interest in doing that and it is not relevant.  It was just somebody going around asking "do you support this or not?" to get input, not a scientific poll.

Ruby Heaton said she has received additional petitions from other areas and granted permission to submit those to Staff Council if that is appropriate.  Clyde said at some point it would have been, but he didn't know  that polls on the previous proposal would be relevant now.  He said he does think whether this issue needs to be decided with input from staff or even by a whole-staff referendum is something the body might want to consider.  He said he's not suggesting that be done, but that is a consideration.

Annette Hatton suggested unless a poll has been done officially from Staff Council that we do not entertain it and asked to strike the one from the Vet School from the record.  Clyde replied the Executive Committee has the authority to make decisions as to whether it's important enough to be mentioned and put into the record.  It is in the records of the Executive Committee, and therefore in the records of Staff Council.  He didn't think it would be logically possible to expunge it.  She then proposed we not entertain any more such polls.  Clyde said we are not.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Elizabeth Pape distributed a report from the Communications Committee and stressed if anyone is having communications problems they should contact the committee.  Doris Bombich asked about the incomplete last sentence on the handout and Elizabeth quipped it was just due to a poor secretary.  She asked everyone to check out Staff Council webpage at http://www.uga.edu/ugasc.

Sally Kroehnke distributed a report from the Health and Safety Committee that listed buildings where HCFC-123 is used and gave information on testing and repairs.

Tony Hughey reported the Needs and Concerns Committee met and revamped the benefits expansion proposal.  He said Lois Morrison had something to say regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution.  Lois said she suggested to the Needs and Concerns Committee that Peggy Herrman, a facilitator and moderator from the Vinson Institute of Government, come and speak to Staff Council about how to hold a facilitated discussion.  She said if you're thinking a referendum is a good idea, one of the things that must be done is to present the information in a way that, whether you are for or against the proposal, there is equal and accurate information.  She said Peggy would like to speak on how to hold a facilitated discussion, which would not be substance specific.  It would simply be to teach representatives meeting with people and fielding questions how to give information in a fair manner, which is an art form in itself.  The information has to go from the Staff Council representative to the SRG (Staff Representative Group) representatives, then down into departments and subunits.  She noted her unit doesn't actually have meetings.  She said she thought this would be something that would benefit Staff Council.  She suggested we have a special meeting that would involve not only Staff Council representatives but also SRG representatives and anyone else who was interested.  She also suggested if there is going to be a deferred vote on the resolution that we do this before the vote.  It's still a good idea to have it soon, because information about anything we talk about here needs to get out.

Clyde said he personally believes the Alternative Dispute Resolution resource is one we would do well to take advantage of.  He said the specific way in which that gets implemented is going to be up to how the Needs and Concerns Committee and Mr. Albert wish for it to be voted on and what the will of Staff Council is in that regard.  He said he didn't think we could make a decision on Lois's suggestion until the resolution is presented.  Lois said she is also presenting it as an alternative not related to the resolution, simply to say this is information that perhaps could benefit Staff Council representatives.  Peggy would be willing to come and present that.

Gilbert Head asked whether a matter regarding the UGA sick leave policy, which some time ago was remanded to Needs and Concerns to look at restructuring the language, still lies in committee.  Tony replied it was sent to the Executive Committee last year and at that point it was taken to Dr. Knapp, who wanted examples and illustrations of what changes they were talking about.  Gilbert asked where it is currently and Tony replied he thought it was dead now.  Gilbert asked if it died in the President's office; Tony said that was right, so they could send it back up.  Gilbert said he had a specific constituency question about the language with regards to "approval of immediate supervisor" and whether or not the university was going to crystalize a definition around that phrase, and he wanted to know how to respond to his constituent.  Tony reiterated it went to Dr. Knapp's president's office.  Gilbert asked what is the correct procedure to revive it.  Clyde asked if this body wishes for that issue to be revived again in the Needs and Concerns and presented to the current president.  There was no objection and the issue was sent to committee with no objections.

Joe Cochran asked whether he had heard correctly that Staff Council will not accept petitions from SRGs anymore.  Clyde said not at this point with regards to previous proposals.  Whether Staff Council would wish to do that would be a decision Staff Council would have to make; we are not doing it now.  Joe asked to direct a question to Lois and permission was granted.  Joe asked whether he understood her to say her unit had no SRG meetings.  She clarified there was no formal way for her SRG representatives to meet directly with staff.  Joe said he thought you could call a representative anytime.  Lois agreed that was true, but said that is not the same thing as having a representative communicate to you what transpired at a meeting.  She has seen words like "responsibility" and "duty" to get information to constituents, and she said the mechanisms in many areas stop at the SRG.  Joe said they need to elect new SRG reps.  Ben Rice said if SRG reps are doing their jobs, there would be no need for petitions. Clyde asked to get back on track to the Needs and Concerns Committee's report.  Tony said there was nothing further.

Arthur Bastidas reported the Classification and Pay Committee had not met but will be pursing mandatory training for supervisors and evaluation of supervisors.

REPORTS OF AD-HOC COMMITTEES

The Bylaws Committee had no report.  Ruby said the Five-Year Commemoration Committee still needs input from everyone and photos or anything archival that can be used.  Penny asked if that is specific for Staff Council or if SRGs can contribute.  Ruby replied they would like to look at as much material and show as much interaction as they can.  Gilbert suggested Staff Council consider archiving the work of the Five-Year Committee.  Clyde said the Parking Appeals Committee is next, and our representative to that committee is no longer here at the university.  The procedures in the past have been for anyone who wishes to take over that position, which is going to be renewed in March, to send a short one-paragraph reason as to why in the world you would want to do this, and the Executive Committee will pick someone.  Any staff member can serve; it is not limited to Staff Council or SRG representatives.  OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program) had no report.  ESP (Employee Support Program) members have an appointment on December 17 to go over their proposal with Bryndis Roberts; hopefully they will be able to present the proposal at the January meeting.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Clyde said there has been progress on Hardman Hall and things are being moved out of the room for the office.  He announced the next meeting of the Executive Committee will be December 17 at 2:30 in the conference room of the Lustrat House.  It will be the annual meeting with the president.  Last year's Executive Committee has been invited to that, and committee chairs are always encouraged to attend.  He said while he certainly doesn't want to say nobody is welcome, he said please be judicious in your attendance at that meeting if you are not on the Executive Committee.  Henry Bridges asked about photos being taken earlier, and Clyde replied that past UGA-SC presidents would be photographed at 2:15.

Jeannie Dawson asked to read a statement she had written as a representative from Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.  It presented her opinion that Staff Council should be a cohesive group that focuses on goals common to the majority of UGA employees.  She said representatives should not promote personal opinions or agendas, but represent the employees that elected them.  She defended the actions of the Executive Committee, in that our current bylaws were followed.  She noted information sent out dated October 31 by the Needs and Concerns Committee was not timely for sharing with coworkers and felt insulted by an insinuation that she may not be presenting information to coworkers in an "informative, educational, and unbiased" manner.  She commented on remarks made at the previous UGA-SC meeting, asking why one member said the dependents portion of the resolution would become a dead issue.  She disagreed with the statement "if you vote your conscience, you are representing the staff that elected you," saying she represents the classified staff that elected her.  She closed by saying that with the exception of one person all the feedback she has received has been against the proposed resolution, and thanked members for their patience and attention.

OLD BUSINESS

Clyde said unfinished business was to bring the proposed resolution off the table.  Michael said the Needs and Concerns Committee met and determined since November 2 when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled, the rules of their work completely changed.  Therefore, they have been able to take into consideration things that have been brought up over the past year and a half that they felt could not have been addressed because of the lack of precedence.  The committee now believes they have a resolution that is open, that is expanded to the point where it no longer becomes a gay and lesbian issue—it really never was.  The committee has facts and figures in terms of percentages and usages of other schools that have enacted similar policies.  They now have a resolution they feel meets a significant need that excludes nobody and allows us to move forward as a cohesive and unified Staff Council.  Clyde said since this is not a committee report, there must be a motion that this resolution be adopted; Michael did so and Sally seconded.

Resolution on Expansion of UGA Services to Employee "Designates"—The UGA Staff Council asks that the University of Georgia, to the extent of the law and to the extent of its independent jurisdiction, expand access to UGA services and facilities to individuals who are sponsored by university employees as their "designates."

In establishing definitions and procedures for the registration of employee "designates," the Staff Council asks that the University of Georgia utilize, as guidelines, the definitions and procedures established by the ordinances of the city of Atlanta, as upheld by the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, for defining and registering "dependents" and "domestic partners" of their employees.

Henry Bridges objected to consideration of the resolution.  Clyde noted no second to the objection is required and the procedure at such a point is that, without debate, the assembly must decide whether it will discuss this issue.  The question was "Does the assembly wish to discuss this issue?"  A decision not to discuss must carry by a 2/3 majority "no" vote.

A motion was made and seconded for a roll-call vote.  Clyde noted such a motion would require only a simple majority, not a 2/3 majority.  Stephanie said she thought the resolution had been tabled and was ready for a vote.  Clyde explained in his judgment the resolution was sufficiently reworded that a new motion was needed to present the new resolution; Henry had objected to consideration of that motion and Clyde had explained the manner in which the vote on that must be taken.  The motion now before the assembly is whether the vote on Henry's objection should be by roll call.  Michael questioned why the previous vote on discussing the former resolution was done by secret ballot and why this one may be done by roll-call vote.  Clyde explained there was a debatable motion before the floor for a roll-call vote, noting he didn't see why it was important, and pointed out the necessity for getting on with business.  He said at the last meeting, he said he'd like a secret ballot and asked if there were any objections; it was perfectly straightforward, nobody objected.  If there is a roll-call vote, each representative's name would be called and he or she would vote yes or no.  He facetiously asked that we not have a roll-call vote on whether to have a roll-call vote.

In discussion, Stephanie said she objected to having a roll-call vote because with issues that are highly emotional, people should have the opportunity to freely give their opinions about whatever we're talking about; a roll-call vote impedes that process. She said she prefers a secret ballot because it insures accuracy and allows people to freely speak their minds.  Henry Bridges countered that constituents would like to know how representatives vote.  Michael asked, since this is a new resolution, who has had time to talk with constituents about whether or not we should discuss it.  Henry said, speaking for himself and 98 percent of his constituents, anything that would involve a homosexual is going to be voted down.  Stephanie said she understood what Henry was saying about constituents wanting to know, but pointing to Jeannie's previous statement noted there is confusion about whether or not we're supposed to be voting our consciences or what constituents say, concluding she still thought a secret ballot would insure accuracy and allow people to vote properly.

Clyde asked for a show of hands on whether there should be a roll-call vote, noting the roll-call vote if passed would be on whether we should discuss this resolution.  Clyde asked if the assembly wished to have a roll-call vote on consideration of the question.  There was not a majority wishing a roll-call vote.

Clyde asked for a show of hands on whether we would discuss the proposed resolution.  A 2/3 majority "no" vote would mean the resolution would not be discussed.  There were 16 "no" votes, which was not a 2/3 majority; so the issue was opened for discussion.

Gilbert said he had made a commitment as head of the Academic Affairs SRG that if his SRG representatives got input from constituents and reported to him, he would bring that to this meeting and have those results entered as part of the record.  Since it's discussing the old language, he asked if placing that in the record would be in order.  Clyde replied in his opinion it would not be in order as it would not be relevant. Gilbert said as long as it was on record that he tried, he could go back to his people in good faith.

Ian Gray asked if the owners of the motion would withdraw the second paragraph of the new resolution.  Michael replied the second paragraph was to ask the university to define "designate" and ask them to use as guidelines something that was tried by the Supreme Court in Atlanta.  He said the reason the words "domestic partners" were in there—and they could be excised—was because "domestic partners" has been a registration point in Atlanta since McKinney v. The City of Atlanta when domestic partners were registered for purposes of jail visitation; it did not require financial dependence at that time.  But "dependents" does cover domestic partners as pursuant to the upheld Atlanta ordinance.  Ian said he understood Bryndis Roberts to say the university system bears no relationship to the city of Atlanta and the Home Rule Act—the Regents are the responsible party.  He said if that is the case, the second paragraph is inflammatory if we pass it.  Stephanie Watson said it would provide an "out" if it were to go forward, and if they had to provide a definition of "designates" she would recommend making the language in the second paragraph more vague.  Ian said this is forcing the Attorney General's department to make a judgment and that is what VP Roberts warned us against doing.  He said she didn't say it would be foolish, but she indicated it would not be wise to inflame the Regents into action.  Linda Dudley asked if anyone had a dictionary to read the definition of the word "designate."  Clyde commented officials who receive proposals frequently take umbrage and are not fond of instructions as to how they should treat the proposal; they simply want the proposal presented and then they will make decisions.

Annette Hatton asked permission for Hal Turner to speak and Clyde recognized him.  Mr. Turner apologized for his outburst at the last meeting and explained he was not familiar with procedure and he would not do so again.  He said he agreed with Mr. Gray.  He said in his attempt to use one of their facilities for a same-sex covenant service, he encountered university administration that was willing to work with him.  While they first were very apprehensive about the concept of two men using their facility, when he explained it was a covenant ceremony not a marriage they quickly cooperated with him.  They were looking for an avenue to work with him.  He said he believes if Staff Council sends this language of "designate" without putting parameters on it, we can accomplish what we want to accomplish, persons on the other side of the room can accomplish what they want to accomplish, and we can all win.  He suggested separating the two paragraphs and sending forth the first one.

Elizabeth Pape said the first paragraph is not limiting.  Mary Cash said "designates" being plural expands this about as far as possible, and this university's smart enough to understand what a designate means. Michael and Sally agreed to remove the second paragraph .

Jim Graham asked whether "designates" would exclude domestic partners.  Michael replied no.  Jim said if that's the case, his colleagues would not support this resolution.  Ruby asked if it could be worded to exclude domestic partners.  Michael said that would violate the university policy on sexual orientation.  Ruby said since it still involves domestic partner relationships, it's the same situation.  Michael said the previous resolution was limited to insurable dependents and domestic partners.  He said he believes the Supreme Court has given us the opportunity to define a dependent in a broad sweep and he didn't believe anyone could have discussed with constituents this resolution that includes the elderly mother or other dependents.  He asked how many constituents would be willing to sacrifice the other members of their family or their friends who might benefit from this for the sake of discriminating against gay and lesbian people.  Ruby said Michael had implied at the last meeting that such a group of people would be covered and reiterated this resolution is no different.  Michael disagreed with her assumption the previous resolution covered other people and said this is a different resolution.

Frank Patman said everyone would like to expand benefits to someone and asked why can't we pass this resolution and let the Board of Regents determine to what designates it will extend support.  Joe Cochran said if the first paragraph had been brought forward a year and a half ago he could have taken it to Physical Plant and tried to sell it.  He went on to say we shouldn't vote on this until it's taken back to constituents.  Stephanie asked Jim if his constituents had indicated a specific reason why they are against such a resolution.  Jim replied it's because homosexual is in there, and also heterosexual, the partnership issue is wrong.  Doris Bombich agreed their constituents would continue to say no.  Clyde pointed out at some point Jim and Doris are going to find out what their people believe; they think they know now and it's fine for that opinion to be expressed.

Gilbert moved to table the resolution so he could take it to his people.  Clyde said he preferred we not use the word "table," but since we were out of time it would be appropriate.  The meeting adjourned at 4:07.  The next meeting will be Wednesday, January 7, 1998, at 2:00 in Room E/F of the Georgia Center.
 

Submitted by Brenda Keen, Secretary