Let public know what's going on in contract talks

last updated: May 20, 2008 05:10:24 AM

Peter Scheer, who heads the California First Amendment Coalition, has a novel idea: End the secrecy surrounding local government labor contract negotiations. The logic and urgency behind his idea is clear when you consider the situation in Vallejo, which has filed for bankruptcy. Why? Because local officials approved salary and benefit costs for public employees and retirees that are more than the city can afford.

Scheer's point is that California law allows local government officials "to avoid public discussion of the true cost and fiscal impact of the pay deals that they have approved." By the time the public sees anything, a contract is a done deal and no changes can be made.

In some states, all phases of the bargaining process, including negotiations, are open to the public (though government officials may discuss strategy for labor negotiations in closed session). Minnesota, Florida, Kansas and Tennessee are examples.

California does the opposite. The state's Brown Act not only allows negotiations about salaries and benefits to be conducted behind closed doors, it allows local government officials to vote on a final agreement in closed session. Only after the vote and union acceptance of the contract does the local government have to let the public in on the deal. And only then does the text of the contract become public record -- when it's too late to change anything.

This is going to be quite important in Modesto over the coming year as the city negotiates contracts with four of its unions. Undoubtedly, those negotiations will be contentious considering the city's reduced revenues.

The situation in Vallejo should cause legislators to revisit how this is done. At a minimum, legislators should require local governments to publish a proposed contract and prepare a single, authoritative, easy-to-read document listing all parts of the offer, including cost, before any vote is taken. They also should require local governments to hold public hearings to consider the financial ramifications of every agreement and all of its parts -- including changes in pensions and retirement plans. The vote to approve or reject the contract should be public.

The Vallejo debacle highlights a basic truth: The public that pays the bills should be able to see and question a contract before a vote, not after.

The public deserves to know the full impact --

and cost -- of government agencies' labor contracts.

To comment, click on the link with this editorial at www.modbee.com/opinion.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer