The Dane County Board of Supervisors voted to ban smoking countywide and ensure domestic partnership benefits to all employees who work for or with the county Thursday night. 

The smoking ban applies to all workplaces, bars and restaurants in the county’s unincorporated towns.

Smoking bans have emerged in various incorporated cities and villages around Dane County, including Madison. The status of unincorporated towns, however, is determined at the county level. 

Supervisor Dave de Felice, District 16, contended this governmental involvement was necessary because a statewide tobacco ban is unlikely to occur in coming years.  

“The statewide smoking ban in the legislature was like Bambi vs. Godzilla. It never stood a chance,” said de Felice. “In the final analysis, people are dying. Is there anything else we have to know?”

Citizens and supervisors discussed various aspects surrounding the issue including public health, personal behavior and government regulation.

In June, Supervisor Mark Opitz, District 26, proposed the smoking ban because “it came down to public health.”

Supervisor Carousel Bayrd, District 8, spoke specifically about protecting the health of waitstaff and bartenders, citing statistics that compared working an eight-hour shift in a smoky environment to smoking six cigarettes. 

These calls for increased regulation were countered by strong opposition from citizens and supervisors who called for greater attention to be given to smokers’ rights. 

The board also voted to establish a registry for same-sex and other non-married domestic partners and demand companies dealing with the county offer benefits for their employees’ domestic partners.

“We need everybody treated fairly and equally for doing the same work,” said Supervisor Chuck Erickson, District 13, a main sponsor of the measure, adding “it’s a basic issue of fairness.” 

Introduced in July, the domestic partner benefits proposal now has 25 co-sponsors out of 37 supervisors who sit on the board.

This registry would provide formal recognition of domestic partners’ commitments to one another while simultaneously serving as documentation for businesses to validate domestic partner relationships.

Businesses who are contracted by the county, such as transportation companies, would also have to offer domestic partner benefits for their employees if they already provide spousal benefits. Companies that sell products to the county, however, would not have to abide by the ordinance.

Prior to the meeting, Erickson said opposition to the proposal is due to what he believes is “homophobia” and the “cost of the extra health care for the companies.” 

Trade unions are the strongest opposition to the measure, claiming it would be too expensive and would delay the progress of their bargaining ability.

Erickson understands their opposition, saying many trade unions have to provide benefits for whole regions but added the cost is relatively minimal.

The measure includes an alternative cash-equivalency option, which allows businesses that do not have domestic partner benefits to continue their services to the county only if they provide employees with domestic partners the money to cover their partner’s health benefits. This option pertains only to health care benefits.

This alternative, however, does not provide the employee with enough money to cover the taxes that are added to health care expenses, Erickson said.

The registry requires the partners prove they have been in a committed relationship for at least 90 days.