Taxpayer interests go unprotected during negotiations, Part Two

I posted 4/16/09 an essay which concluded with this paragraph: “The day when taxpayers are free to sit in on negotiations regarding pay and benefits for tax-paid employees is the day when the taxpayers’ interests will be protected. We need a law to provide that protection, but until then we need a full public report on what happens when our employees line up at the trough.” That essay drew a lot of comments from Advocate readers and it can be accessed at this link.

Since then, the Advocate’s short list of blogs has allowed this discussion to slip off into its cyber abyss, though the arguments were still flowing, and at least one of which is worthy of rebuttal. Here’s what “moreon” wrote:

“Bruce,
negotiations by public employees shouldn’t transpire under public scrutiny in real time. That would be nutty if you could do it. It would devolve into Bedlam. (Thus I got off on my tangent about pure democracy and Perot....)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business. Those facts and the contract itself tell the story. Additionally, the board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.

“Further, beyond the real time-Bedlam point, I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be. The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially. The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration. You can decide from this process whom to look to replace with a better candidate. (At some point, we need to start voting for someone, not against.) Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible– the ones who owned the decision– and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.

“Believe me, I know how difficult it can be in this county to get to the bottom of things with public entities, prominent organizations, powerful people, and even the media– notwithstanding the board meeting open microphone, newspapers blogs, letters to the editor, etc. It’s even harder, after you get to the bottom of the facts, to get them noticed, realized, and listened to by the public without first being crushed or distorted by powerful interests of the status quo. Then, there is always the apathy. Many very bright people here concentrate not on the local but focus outward toward Columbus or the rest of the world. Oops, I feel a tangent coming on....

“Joe Citizen...sit in during the process?

“Yeah, let’s get all of us bozos on this blog in to micro-manage what our elected board does in negotiations!!! It might be fun at times and get the blood moving, but what we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all. Tangent!...damn!!!
4/18/2009 11:51 AM EDT

Here’s my response to all that ...

“It would devolve into Bedlam.”

If the law were to guarantee public scrutiny, negotiators would learn to negotiate openly because they would have to. (And since you capitalized “Bedlam” I had to go look it up. Now I know.)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.”

I don’t understand “guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.” Are you saying laws already address this? And if so, could you give me a fer-instance, and tell me where these underlying facts are available to the public? Or are you saying we need more laws to guarantee this?

“Those facts and the contract itself tell the story.”

Are labor contracts between public employees and government administrators public records, and if so how are they accessed (specifically, those for Newark City Schools and The City of Newark and Licking County)?

“... The board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.”

But we don’t vote for the superintendent/administration. Further, until all these factors regarding who’s doing what, saying what, representing whose interests and how - until then we haven’t a notion who might be villain or hero.

“I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be.”

Nor did I say they should. I said they should be open to public observation, not that the public should intervene nor even be heard during this process.

“The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially.”

I’m not sure how you arrived at any of this but, as regards public employees and public shepherds of tax money, I think you’re wrong. The public’s money is at stake and that’s justification enough to require by law that the public may observe the negotiations process.

“The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.”

There is no way, in my opinion, that public exclusion from public business could ever be a benefit. In what context do you make such a pronouncement? And why wouldn’t I want - and why shouldn’t I be entitled to - a transcript of negotiations between public employees and the people who are presumably guarding my interests?

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration.”

How do you propose that individual taxpayers get the “facts existing,” “facts agreed upon,” and most particularly “truthful accountability” from any public official and particularly from anyone representing Newark City Schools?

“Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible – the ones who owned the decision – and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.”

That’s a stretch. The ability to hide behind closed doors provides a shield for collective irresponsibility. If everyone’s at fault, then no one is at fault. Straight answers begin to flow only when these folks are flushed out of the shadows.

“What we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all.”

Right on. Opening negotiations between overseers and manipulators of public funding - all levels of government and quasi-government (not just schools) - and public employee unions would, in my opinion, help bring all that to fruition.