The issue of open government is not a trivial one and a very important principal. Four years ago, the employee unions managed to time their CLOSED SESSION labor negotiation so that THREE inexperienced and uninformed council members, Robinson, Cline, and Boyle would sit across the table from management who had a financial interest in the outcome. The result was the $6.4million pension giveaway. Tomorrow, at Tuesday's CLOSED SESSION, the unions are AGAIN sitting across from two NEW council members. I believe that Ohtaki is reasonably wise in the ways of the such things, BUT I ASK, why is it all done out of the view of the public? Please communicate to the council that we SHOULD HAVE OPEN NEGOTIATIONS...
2 - Retired Council Member John Boyle has also recently addressed this issue in an email to the current Council:
Based on your agendas (open and closed) for this Tuesday, I had hoped to be able to attend to make a comment, but it now looks like I will not be able to be there. As such, I'd like to share a couple of thoughts in advance via this email.
Firstly, I hope you are able to quickly resolve the current mayor-selection issue and put it behind you. It's a shame that this happened. On the one hand, it is easy to understand how conversations can spiral beyond original intent, but quite frankly, it's disappointing to me to see this happen since a very
analogous situation occurred roughly just a year ago during our council deliberations about endorsing one of us for the SamTrans seat through the Council of Cities election. Based on what happened in that case, we were all given clear reminders and explanations with regard to the application of the Brown Act to this type of intra-Council lobbying.
My main reason for writing this email, though, is not about that situation. Rather, it is about the broader topic of doing the public's business in the open. As important as it is to avoid inappropriate, multiple-individual conversations, it is even more critical to ensure that full Council meetings be done in the open, whenever possible (vs just whenever required).
When I saw the posting for a Closed Session for this coming Tuesday (the FIRST full Council meeting for you as a group) to discuss labor negotiations with the SEIU, I felt "like it was déjà vu all over again…." Four years ago, when Rich, Heyward, and I first came onto Council, we went almost immediately into a Closed Session to discuss labor negotiations.
If I could do it all again, those Closed Session meetings are at the top of the list of situations that I would certainly handle differently. I can only speak for myself, but I strongly regret following a process that had us giving negotiation guidance and direction to staff in Closed Session BEFORE having a separate, open, public, well-noticed meeting on the same topic. Yes, there are
things that need to be kept confidential, but it was, in my opinion, a major mistake to not more fully vet the general negotiation items and issues in full view of the public and press, BEFORE giving staff guidance that led to a preliminary agreement with labor. Yes, that preliminary agreement still had to be approved in public, but let's face it, by that point, it would have been very difficult to back away from the deal that was on the table. I sincerely wish we
had had the benefit of some of the insight and perspectives that the press and greater public gave us BEFORE, rather than after, we reached that point.
I, of course, don't know what specifics are planned for discussion in your upcoming Closed Session (and that lack of detailed agenda is another issue which I hope you will take up at some point). To the degree it's simply for you to hear a confidential proposal from labor, or perhaps to get a confidential analysis of potential terms from staff, then that probably makes great sense.
But I urge you to learn from what I believe was a mistake made when I was on Council: do not give staff guidance or direction on labor negotiations until AFTER you hold a Public Study Session on the same topic.
We used that approach (first having a Public Study Session) in the most recent set of labor negotiations, and with great results: the public was heard in advance, Council (and Labor) understood clearly the strength of public opinion, and it helped unite us in pushing for a plan that, while unfortunately had to be imposed on one of our labor unions, it did respect our employees (no layoffs, salary cuts, onerous terms, etc) while at the same time, it was fiscally responsible.
Given the recent election results on Measure L and the current mayoral
situation, I'd especially encourage you to be sensitive to the fact that the public clearly feels strongly about both labor negotiations AND about open process. It is critical that you not inadvertently move down a path that might contradict the public's will.
Thanks for your service and consideration of this matter,
3 - I also sent the Council the following email regarding the Fire District's Resolution on how to get public input after labor negotiations but before voting on a proposed labor agreement:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION
OF PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of promoting prompt public access to government records, the California Public Records Act broadly defines public records (Gov. Code Section 6252, subdivision (3)) and the exceptions to disclosing public records under the California Public Records Act are narrow; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 through 54963, enacted into law in 1953, requires open meetings of local agencies "to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies"; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act "…reflects a legislative determination that 'public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business,' and an intent 'that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly' (Gov. Code Section 54950); and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act require the District to conduct its business in a transparent manner; and
WHEREAS, the Board, as duly elected representatives of the citizens within the District, in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, is committed to providing the District's citizens with information considered by the Board in making its decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes due to the importance of proposed collective bargaining agreements with the District employee labor representatives, that these proposed agreements should be made available to the citizens of the District in sufficient time prior to the Board's adoption of the proposed agreements so as to allow for adequate review and comment by the public prior to final Board action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District does hereby move that any proposed collectively bargained labor agreement between the District and designated District employee representatives shall be made publicly available at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the meeting at which the agreement will be acted on by the Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at the Regular Meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008
Perhaps it is time for the Menlo Park Council to make some of these proposed changes.
This story contains 1298 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.