On the heels of a decision by Larimer County government to offer benefits for domestic partners of employees, a faculty group at Colorado State University reaffirmed its support for similar action by CSU.

The university’s 82-member faculty council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to support extending benefits, saying the university is at a competitive disadvantage because of the lack of coverage.

Robert Jones, a microbiology professor and head of the faculty council, said faculty have supported extending benefits to domestic partners since 1994.

“It’s getting more common. We hear recruits coming here for positions that are asking if a benefit is available here and concerned that it’s not,” he said.

The university benefits committee recommended doing so in 1995, 2000, 2001 and 2004. It would apply to about 4,000 faculty and administrative professional positions, Jones said.

“When it’s a key position and you’ve got an excellent, nationally competitive candidate, you want to do everything you can to get them here and do the right things for them when they come,” he said.

The state’s Public Employees Retirement Association added domestic partner benefits for retirees since 2001; the University of Colorado’s board of regents added it in 2003; and Larimer County did it a month ago.

Jones said the faculty council had planned to resurrect the issue since Christmas, but the county’s recent decision put it in an even brighter spotlight.

“That just reinforced that we need to do this to be competitive in the workplace for recruiting individuals,” he said.

Jones said faculty members and university staff widely support the plan.

“It’s generally considered to be the right thing to do,” he said.

CSU President Larry Penley would have to decide whether to forward the recommendation to the university’s board of governors, which had rejected the proposal in years past. The Denver Post reported that Penley supports the faculty. Jones said changes in the board after Gov. Bill Ritter was elected in 2006 may bode well for the plan.

“We hope it doesn’t come back. We hope this is the last time we discuss it, and by January 1 when the annual changes occur, that it will be part of the package,” Jones said.