NEWS

WIRES

OTHER

Open Teacher Contract Negotiations to Go Public

By Steve Gunn

Its time for the public to be directly involved in teacher contract negotiations

The headline in the Northwest Herald sums up a problem facing perplexed taxpayers across the nation:

"Secrecy aims to protect contract."

It was referring to a tentative collective bargaining agreement recently negotiated in private by the District 26 Board of Education in Illinois and the Cary Education Association.

The school board president told the paper that the release of any details regarding the agreement, before it's ratified by the board and union, might put ratification in jeopardy.

"We understand everyone wants to know what the agreement is, but it is most important to insure that the agreement happens," Board President Chris Spoerl was quoted as saying.

We respectfully disagree with Mr. Spoerl, and would like to ask him a simple question: Who's protecting the taxpayers in this secretive process?

We fail to understand how any school board and teachers union can negotiate with taxpayer money, yet fail to allow taxpayers input into the negotiating process.

Local taxpayers across the nation cough up millions of dollars every year to fund their local schools. About 75 percent of those schools' budgets are dominated by labor costs, mostly negotiated union labor costs.

Many school districts are in severe financial jeopardy, and have been terminating low-seniority teachers or cutting student programs to balance their budgets. That leaves many taxpayers wondering if schools are spending too much on compensation for veteran teachers and not enough on student instruction.

But theres nothing they can do to address that concern if compensation is negotiated behind their backs.

As the Glen Falls (N.Y.) Post Star put it in a recent editorial, Given the significant financial impact on taxpayers of employee salary-and-benefits packages at all levels of government, maybe its time to rethink our societal acceptance of secrecy when it comes to public contract negotiations.

You would think the public would at least be invited to quietly witness collective bargaining negotiations, then ask questions or offer opinions at the end of each session. Local media would undoubtedly be present to keep the entire community updated.

Perhaps each side would think twice about hard-nosed bargaining positions if they had to present them in public.

If thats not possible, perhaps taxpayers should have veto power. Maybe any tentative contract should require the endorsement of the school board, union membership and the public-at-large before it can take effect.

That way everyones interests would be represented.

Going public is good PR

There has been some change for the better. Recent education reforms in Idaho require school districts and unions to negotiate in public.

Last year the Millstone, New Jersey school board reached a contract agreement with its teachers union after posting details of all proposals on its website throughout the negotiation process.

But most districts across the nation still close the door on the public, and spend millions of taxpayer dollars in seclusion. The people only learn what the new contract costs after the issue is settled.

When information leaks out "too early," the officials who negotiate in private are usually furious.

A recent story in the Scranton (Pa.) Times-Tribune informed the public about a fact-finding report issued by the state's Labor Relations Board, which recommended an average 1.25 percent salary increase for Scranton teachers over the course of several years.

Another document obtained by the newspaper indicated that such an increase would add $1.4 million to the district's payroll this year, and more in future years.

The school board, citing the district's tight budget, is proposing a freeze in salary and step increases for the current school year, and a 1.2 pay increase with a step freeze for 2012-13. The union has been demanding a 3 percent salary increase each year, with full step increases as well.

The public would not have known any of this if it were left to local officials. The various proposals only became public when the Labor Relations Board released the fact-finding report to the newspaper.

"I think whoever supplied (the Times-Tribune) with it was completely wrong," Harry McGrath, the school district solicitor, was quoted as saying. "It's confidential, and I think it's a shame."

It's a shame that the public knows what kind of money the boardmight be tossing around? It is their money. Don't they have a right to know where it's going before it's spent?

We suspect many school administrators are failing to consider the public relations points they could score through open negotiations. Local teachers unions traditionally turn to the public for support during contract negotiations, using emotional appeals like support our teachers without revealing any details of their demands. School boards generally remain silent.

That leads many residents to side with the union, if for no other reason than many people know and have positive relationshipswith teachers, while board members remain shadowy and distant. A great way for school boards to counter that advantage would be to release details of the union demands and illustrate how the district cant afford them.

That happened earlier this year in the South Glen Falls (N.Y.) school district, where the acting superintendent became disgusted with union demands and released the details of all proposals in a press release. That reportedly forced the angry union to defend its position in public.

We believe the Post Star, in the editorial mentioned above, summed the situation up perfectly:

The argument against open negotiations essentially boils down to one of three basic assumptions: The citizens are uninformed; the citizens are irrational and easily manipulated; the citizens are incapable of drawing intelligent conclusions based on fact.

The arguments are essentially the same ones used against open government and transparency of any kind. But when placed under modest scrutiny, the justifications just dont hold up.

Open negotiations should come down to just one basic assumption: The citizens are paying for it. Its the publics contract. They should be part of it throughout the process, not just when the tax bills come due.