Domestic partners of Indianapolis city employees could qualify for benefits under a proposal filed by City-County Councilor Angela Mansfield.
The ordinance, to be introduced June 4, would apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex partners.
Mansfield, a Democrat, thinks she has enough bipartisan support to pass an ordinance, and Mayor Greg Ballard is not threatening
a veto.
“You do these kinds of things to attract and keep talented personnel,” Mansfield said.
Her proposal defines domestic partners as "two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutal caring, who have shared a residence for at least 365 days, and who have agreed to be jointly responsible for basic living expenses..." The partners must sign a "declaration of domestic partnership."
Domestic partners would be eligible for health insurance and pension benefits, and their children would be eligible for health insurance.
Republican councilor Jack Sandlin said Friday he will likely oppose the ordinance because of the cost of expanding benefits.
"Why would we take on an expense when we can't fund our public safety department?" he asked.
The city has 7,451 employees eligible for health insurance benefits, and about 87 percent of them are enrolled, Controller Jeff Spalding said. With spouses and children, the city's total enrollment is 15,181.
Mansfield said she doesn’t know the potential fiscal impact of her proposal, but she thinks it won’t be great. The city already saves money through a spousal-exclusion policy, which is to say that spouses who can buy insurance through their own employers can’t use city benefits. That policy would apply to domestic partners, too.
One factor that would prevent abuse, Mansfield said, is that domestic-partner benefits are taxable, and therefore more costly to the employee.
Ballard spokesman Marc Lotter said the mayor would also want to look at the potential fiscal impact and ensure that the policy
prevents fraud and abuse. “He’s open to taking a look at it if the council is able to pass something,” Lotter
said.
Mansfield said she looked to Indiana universities, most of which offer some kind of domestic partner benefit, and the Town
of Lawrence, which also offers the benefit, in drafting the proposal.
Domestic-partner benefits are becoming more common throughout the private sector, said Angie Brawdy, state council director for the Indiana chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management. “More companies are seeing that as a recruitment tool.”
Mansfield has contemplated filing the proposal since 2010, before Democrats took control of the council. Even at that time, she thought there was enough support to pass an ordinance.
“Overall, I just don’t think this is going to be a big deal,” she said.

















IBJ Conversations
14 Comments
Add Comment
Isn't the city in charge of Marion county charter schools and in line to take over several IPS schools?
Would this attract the talent the school board is seeking?
IPS is currently doing a very intrusive employee healthcare audit that is intended to disqualify current benefit holders as it cuts healthcare benefits and raises premiums.
Remember when the state took over its police pension obligations because it couldn't afford it?
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPS/IMPD/Employment/Sworn/Pages/benefits.aspx
In fact, it is surprising that the city would be able to extend benefits on a pension program administered by the state, which legally can not recognize same sex marriage.
How fair is it that homosexuals are being paid more than their heterosexual peers because of their sexual choice?
Heterosexual are claiming benefits for room mates who are unemployed out of a sense of friendship.
Mike Miller, a 33-year-old self-employed personal trainer living in Chicago, was able to get on his male roommate's insurance plan for a year, even though the two are straight and were never dating.
"It was completely heterosexual. He's just my best friend," Miller said. "I think he just filled out a form and that was that.".
Same sex marriage is illegal in Indiana.
Also, too say the "fiscal proposil is huge" without considering the actuarial factors involved is a bit of an overstatement. We really don't know if it is huge or not. If all of the people added to the plan are healthy and don't have claims then it could bring cost done or hold them neutral.
My understanding is that this proposal covers not only same sex partners and children, but opposite same sex partners who are not married and any kids.
It also covers all city and county employees, plus municipal corporations which use city/county benefits packages including Health and Hospital Corporation (Wishard), Indianapolis Airport Authority, Indianapolis Convention Center,Lucas Oil,Bankers Life, Indianapolis Marion County Library, and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo).
Certainly Indianapolis Public Schools will also want more benefits also.
The fiscal cost on this proposal is huge.
What prevents people from claiming benefits from more than one employer for more than one "partner"?
Don't see the HR department conducting sex & committed relationship audits with home visits?
The article you cited is about extending the benefits to ALL people in the entire UNITED STATES. The research article that you and Fox news cited states on payge 24 that “Such language (like the city-council wants to adopt) could prohibit married same sex couple from being included in the extension of federal benefits provide.
When you actually READ the proposal it would cost very little. To even qualify for benefits first you must be gay (about 10% of the population). Second, you must be in a long term committed relationship (let’s assume that is 50% of the 10% so about 5% of the total). Then your partner must not be eligible for health care or other benefits (again let’s assume 50% of the 5% are not in a position of qualifying for benefits so now 2.5%). A total of 2.5% of all employees would be eligible. If you use some common since and think that people won’t want to be “out-ed” in Indiana the number would be even less.
The moral of this rant is please READ before you post.
They obviously don't really care about the cost.
They should.
Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/extending-federal-benefits-sex-couples-cost-m-cbo-says/