Spokane voters will soon be receiving their ballots in the mail. One of the proposals they’ll be considering is Proposition 1 to amend the city charter to require transparency for public contract talks. There are several examples of collective bargaining transparency requirements already at the local level in Washington State. Examples include efforts for transparency of government union negotiations in Gig Harbor, Lincoln County, Kittitas County, Ferry County, Spokane County, the Pullman School District and the Kennewick School District. Collective bargaining transparency is also currently the norm in nearly half of the states across the country including in Oregon.

I recently received an email explaining how these transparent contract talks are working for Oregon school districts. When Lisa Freiley worked for the Oregon School Boards Association, she said the following about transparent contract talks:

“Our school districts have been bargaining in public for many years. About 15 years ago our legislature made a change to collective bargaining law in regards to public vs. private negotiations. The prior law allowed one party to request negotiations take place in executive session (e.g. private) and the result was private session negotiations. When the legislature made the change, they decided to require negotiations to take place in public unless BOTH parties wanted to negotiate in executive session (e.g. private). So there is still an option if you are dealing with some really sensitive subjects. The union was quite upset with the change in the beginning but it is just standard practice these days. Most negotiate in public but some still use executive session (e.g. private).

The school districts have actually found it to be a useful process because it requires both parties to behalf in a professional and respectful manner when you know parents, media and other community members will be watching. This has often resulted in more reasonable proposals (relatively speaking -- the really outrageous stuff very seldom makes it to the table during open negotiations). It also allows the other bargaining unit members to hear and see what the board/district is saying rather than having to be filtered through the union's newsletter. The other thing we have found is that the public and media really only show up either in the beginning (then they get bored and stop coming) or during high conflict negotiations and then we have found the ability for parents, teachers and the community to hear the discussions for themselves to be beneficial.”

This experience confirms the points made by advocates for transparent contract talks. Both the public and union members benefit from not being kept in the dark.

Taxpayers should be allowed to follow the process and hold government officials accountable for the spending decisions they make on our behalf. Government employees should also be able to see firsthand what offers and counteroffers are being made by union executives in their name.

A policy of open public meetings would identify whether one side or the other is being unreasonable and would quickly reveal who, if anyone, is acting in bad faith.

The state Open Public Meetings Act proclaims:

“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

The people have a right to know how public spending decisions are made on their behalf. Ending collective bargaining secrecy and opening government union contract negotiations to the public, as other states and cities have done, is a practical and ethical way to achieve that standard.

If adopted by voters, Proposition 1 would help to fulfill these open government principles for Spokane public collective bargaining agreements.