City Counseling: At Council

Heading into the country's Nov. 3 elections, all eyes were on the governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia, plus the teabagging spectacle of New York's 23rd congressional district special election. Meanwhile, Question 1, a ballot measure in Maine that would repeal the state's recent legalization of same-sex unions, had barely registered on the national radar. But on Tuesday, it passed narrowly. While gay rights aren't as politically divisive as they once were, this week's election was a reminder of the continuing struggle for gay equality.

Closer to home this week, the city of Austin is taking another step toward recognizing gay unions. City Council Member Bill Spelman announced this week that the city will begin offering coverage to the domestic partners of city employees in the event a partner is fired or dies or the couple separates. The plan is modeled after COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, a federal statute that guarantees coverage to spouses in the above instances, but not to gay partners. The city has offered health coverage to the partners of city employees since the passage of a 2006 proposition and now covers 228 of them, so supporters are characterizing this as the next logical step.

For Spelman, the issue is personal; when Frank Kopic, a city employee and member of Spelman's previous office team, passed away, his partner applied for COBRA benefits but was denied, due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act's specification of a couple as a man and a woman. Calling Kopic "the best constituent services guy the city's ever had," Spelman says, "It's only fair that his partner – and all domestic partners of city employees – get the same access to health insurance that married couples take for granted." Now they will. The change will be handled administratively, requiring no council action, and since it's a local decision, DOMA doesn't apply. "I appreciate the way the staff recognized immediately that this was the right thing to do and made it happen so quickly when I brought it to their attention," Spelman says.

Meanwhile, on the dais Thursday (today), council faces a 71-item agenda, but it's largely composed of procedural items. The most contentious item is the South Shore PUD, up for third and final reading as Item 61; despite their reasoned public explanations, Spelman and Chris Riley continue to take heat from the neighborhood and enviro constituents for supporting it on second reading, and new questions about the developers' affordable housing contribution hang over the proposal. While public hearings are closed on third readings, expect discussion – and hand-wringing – among the council members.

The remaining items of interest include a measure from the police (Item 26) that would prohibit any sound or music from a boat or watercraft "causing a vibration 100 feet from the equipment." Council also stands ready to formally oppose Leander and Granite Shoals' proposal to discharge wastewater effluent into local lakes (Item 39) and to direct the city manager to implement the Animal Advisory Commission's recommendations from July on how to reduce the frequency of euthanasia and increase "live animal outcomes" (Item 40).