Stunned is probably a good word for my reaction to reading a Sunday Op-Ed in the San Jose Mercury News from the President of the San Jose Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 230. He was responding to an op-ed that had been in the Mercury News back on November 4, 2009.
The discussion mirrors a debate that we should be having in Davis in light of the our current labor negotiations that have occurred behind closed doors where there can be no light of public scrutiny until the point at when they are concluded. At that point we have no agreed upon parameters whereby the public and the city council can scrutinize the contracts. Apparently we are not the only city undergoing these sorts of problems. But perhaps for the first time, we have been shown the light.
Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio writes:
“The current practice of labor negotiations being held behind closed doors in San Jose is bad business for the city. In the era of sunshine, all labor negotiations should be public so that residents can see, hear and attend them just like other public meetings.
Today, the only people allowed at labor negotiation meetings are professional negotiators hired by the unions, union officials and city management staff. The discussions that take place are not seen or heard by anyone except those present. The unions and city staff constantly accuse each other of “dishonest tactics” and “feeling disrespected” during these meetings — and because the public and even the council can’t attend, we have no idea who’s telling the truth. Negotiating in public would end this behavior.”
He continued:
“While the council voted in public on the contracts, there was little or no public disclosure of details beforehand. The real decisions were made in closed meetings. Nor are there any transcripts of what was said that led to pensions, benefits and wages that are unsustainable.”
The Union President of the San Jose Fire Fighters responded on Sunday. The stunning part is that he said the problem with the proposal is that it does not go far enough.
“The problem with this proposal is that it does not go far enough. Let’s open all the city’s contract negotiations to the public.
Union leaders are happy to negotiate with the city publicly as long as the rules apply to all the city’s business dealings. A massive infusion of sunlight into all the city’s secret negotiations, backroom deals and closed-door confabs would go a long way toward cauterizing the wounds responsible for the hemorrhaging of our municipal treasury.”
He continued:
“Why doesn’t the City Council demand that city contracts with developers, lawyers, consultants and others be renegotiated as well? And it should all be done in public.”
Furthermore:
“Let’s make it easy for the public by posting the amount and work scope for every one of those transactions on the city’s Web site. I’m sure many are meritorious, but the point remains: The city should welcome the same scrutiny Oliverio wishes to impose on labor negotiations.
Unions are not afraid of conducting our business in public. We are democratic organizations that answer to our members, and we’re proud of our role in providing high-quality city services to our fellow San Joseans. But we won’t be singled out, either.”
The Situation Facing Davis
In Davis, the council seems to play more of a role in the negotiations than they do in San Jose, but the bottom line is still the same. We have no idea what is being negotiated on our behalf by the city. These negotiations have taken place for months now behind closed doors. Every time it seems there will be a deal, it gets postponed.
We are facing a multifaceted crisis where we must reduce our short-term deficit and also deal with long term issues of retirement health benefits and pensions.
Indications right now are that the city has failed to represent the public adequately in these matters. The finance director has already suggested that the city will fall $350,000 short of the savings they had hoped for in the new contracts that means the money will have to be made up elsewhere.
Before the process started, myself and others implored the city to lay out the policy to bring the contracts forward to be scrutinized by the public. But the city never laid out such a policy, that means when the time comes, we have no idea how the public will come to know of these contracts. Some have even suggested that the council might be able to ratify the contracts the same meeting where they agreed to them behind closed doors. If that is true, then there will be no ability whatsoever for the public to scrutinize these contracts.
It is unclear what will come between the exchange with the Councilmember and Firefighter Union President in San Jose, but it is a debate we needed to have a year ago in Davis. It is never too late however, perhaps the city and bargaining units will step up in Davis as well for the benefit of the citizens of Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Negotiation transcript:
Union Representative for Fire Fighters: “We want an extra 85 hours a year of overtime for “union organizing activities”. By which of course we mean keggers in the fire house…”
City Representative: “Heck, make it an even 100!”
City Councilman: “If they are a union organizing event, can I pass out campaign literature and collect donations there?”
Union Representative: “Of course you can!”
City Councilman: “Sold!”
No, I can’t see any advantage of the public getting to see this process. If we do get the right, we may want to pass out air-sickness bags.
David:
I assume atht the contracts are a matter of public record (and subject to the public records act) so you are referring to the negotiations, yes? There may be legitimate reasons for keeping these confidential (though I cannot think of any) but in the end they need more scrutiny.
My guess is that public apathy is the main issue here. As our City’s budget worsens and we must make tough choices, however, I hope everyone will be paying more attention. I’d hasten to add, though, that this is why we elect representatives.
The only way we can tell if our elected representatives are doing a good job is by understanding what they are doing behind closed doors. Based on what has been reported out of those discussions, they have proven a complete disgrace in their dealings with Unions. Perhaps with the doors thrown open, we can see if they are simply inept or merely negligent.
[i]”There may be legitimate reasons for keeping these confidential (though I cannot think of any) but [u]in the end they need more scrutiny[/u].” [/i]
I think Phil is exactly right, here. They need more scrutiny from the point at which the negotiators for both sides agree to contracts and the point at which the city council agrees to them.
I would like to see the City of Davis institute a policy — heck, even pass an ordinance — which requires each contract to be vetted by the Finance & Budget Commission. The commission’s ought to answer the basic questions about the document: 1) Can we afford this contract in the short-run? 2) Can we afford this contract in the long-run? 3) How do the changes in this contract affect the provision of city services in the next few years? 4) How do the changes in this contract affect the provision of city services in the long-run?
After the F&B has had a chance to weigh-in, the public needs to be allowed to express its views. If the public does not like, for example, paying members of a certain union ($100,000 a year extra) overtime so the members of that union can conduct union business, the public should have the chance to express that point of view before the council votes. If the public thinks it is excessive to pay massive amounts of overtime so members of a certain union can get 14.5 paid holidays a year — double what the private sector gets — the public should have a right to express that view before the contracts are voted on. Etc.
Gunrock:
I don’t disagree with anything you or david is saying. I’m merely pointing out that we already have enough transparency to show that our elective representatives (well… 3 out of 5) are not doing their job, but I see little outcry apart from this blog.
If you open up negotiations I would bet that deals will be struck under the table and the public negotiations will become a ritual, like Kabuki theater.
Better to change our CC.
A strong case has been made the firefighters are overpaid. But in general, public negotiations aren’t really negotiations at all. It is difficult to retract or change offers that are made in public. So instead of rooting around for common ground or a compromise, the negotiations reduce to grandstanding. If public negotiations look like they work, then typically all of the hard questions were resolved in private anyway.