The News Tribune (Lite) - Key word is ‘public’ in public employee contract talks

TheNewsTribune.com
Section: Other voices

Key word is ‘public’ in public employee contract talks

MICHAEL REITZ
We’ve all heard the slogan: “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” Thankfully, a judge recently ruled that this logic doesn’t apply to public employee contract negotiations, and taxpayers cannot be completely shut out of a publicly funded process.

King County Judge Christopher Washington ruled that documents exchanged between the state and public employee unions during negotiations are public records.

The conflict arose when the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a records request for proposals, counterproposals and the state’s bargaining notes related to agreements negotiated for the 2007-09 biennium. These contracts will cost taxpayers nearly $1.6 billion.

A coalition of 10 unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the Washington Public Employees Association, filed suit against the state to prevent disclosure. “The information sought is of no legitimate concern to the public and not in the public interest,” stated union attorneys in legal papers.

No legitimate concern? That’s what they said.

The unions also hedged their bets by prevailing upon state lawmakers to introduce legislation addressing our records request. Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, sponsored House Bill 2326, which prohibited the release of negotiation records. This bill ultimately died.

As the lawsuit moved forward, the unions alleged all manner of apocalyptical doom if taxpayers obtained negotiations records. “The release of the proposals and negotiation notes will undermine collective bargaining by inviting the public, the media and other nonparties into the negotiation process,” wrote union lawyers.

Union negotiators argued their free speech would be inhibited if the public found out what happened behind closed doors. “If I knew that my comments would be available for public review, I would not be comfortable speaking until I had carefully thought through all my comments. I might decide not to speak at all,” said T.J. Janssen, a home health care worker.

Jay Ubehlart, a deckhand with Washington State Ferries, was even more candid: “If I, in the heat of negotiations, stated I didn’t give a damn about those complaining customers and it was written down by a member of the management team, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation or a media outlet would print it on the front page of any communications organ of their choosing.”

Union members, legislators and taxpayers deserve to know how the state arrived at a final collective bargaining agreement. Lawmakers get an up-or-down vote on funding, but the contract details are not subject to amendment. By tracking the progress of negotiations, lawmakers can verify that the best possible deal was reached.

Rank-and-file members also benefit from a more transparent bargaining process. Hundreds of state workers expressed outrage in 2004 when the state agreed to charge nonunion workers a fee for union representation as a condition of employment – a policy agreed to in closed negotiation sessions.

Taxpayers have an especially strong interest in transparent bargaining. Not only do they provide the necessary contact funds, but they underwrite the bargaining process, sometimes even paying for union representatives to sit at the table.

Despite this, the general public’s role is especially limited: Taxpayers cannot comment on priorities before negotiations, they have no oversight during negotiations and they cannot obtain details in time to affect the public debate once negotiations are finalized.

Ultimately, Judge Washington ruled that collective bargaining documents are subject to disclosure under the state Public Disclosure Act. The documents, however, are available only after the Legislature funds the contracts during the budget process.

This ruling is a victory for open, transparent government, but Washington state still has room for improvement. The Legislature could improve public review by allowing taxpayers to see negotiation details before final funding is approved.

Several states (including Oregon, Idaho and Montana) allow members of the public to attend negotiation sessions, while other states require public bodies to produce negotiation documents upon request. Washington should consider doing the same.

What you do in Vegas is your own business, but what state employees do on public time is everyone’s.

Michael Reitz is legal counsel and director of labor policy for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based public policy organization. He can be reached at mreitz@effwa.org.