The public isn’t going to
know much more than it already does about labor negotiations at the Civic
Center under a plan pitched by administrators on behalf of county supervisors.
In an analysis that takes
issue with key grand jury assertions while deferring decisions on key
recommendations until “further analysis,” the county administration argues that
pulling the covers off employee pay talks may not result in the best deal for
taxpayers.
At issue is a transparent
labor negotiation process used in Southern California called Civic Openness In
Negotiations, or COIN. The open government program requires public agencies to
hire professional negotiators and an outside auditor, issue an independent
fiscal analysis of all pay and benefit proposals, and post details of tentative
labor pacts at least two board meetings before they are adopted.
After each proposal is
accepted or rejected during closed-door negotiations, it must be publicly
disclosed, along with costs. In addition, tentative agreements are made public
a week before their consideration, and a final agreement placed on the agenda
for discussion for two consecutive meetings of the agency board, giving time
for taxpayers to weigh in.
The Marin Civil Grand Jury
liked the open government program so much it issued two reports calling for its
adoption, asking key Marin public agencies to provide timely, independent
analyses of the costs of pay and benefit proposals.
The COIN process, the jury
concluded, illuminates “decisions made during negotiations that lead to a
tentative agreement.” It does not allow the public to negotiate, and
negotiations are not held in public, but requires periodic reports about
proposals and their costs — and time for the public to react to a final package
before it is adopted. Elected officials are thus more accountable for results.
But County Administrator
Matthew Hymel, in a response to the jury up for review by the county board
Tuesday morning, said that while the county “sees value in implementing some of
the COIN provisions ... other provisions may work against our ultimate goal to
negotiate the best deal for taxpayers.”
The proposal Hymel identifies
as helpful — and recommended for adoption “after good faith bargaining” with
labor unions — is more timely publication of tentative labor pacts. He said the
county will announce tentative pacts on the county board “consent calendar”
seven days before the county board meeting at which they will be reviewed. The
pacts then would be set for adoption at a subsequent board meeting.
In any event, by the time
they are forwarded to top officials for adoption, labor pacts the same
officials helped direct behind closed doors are regarded as done deals. As it
stands at the Civic Center, labor pacts are noted on agendas issued Thursday
and routinely adopted without change by county supervisors the following
Tuesday — most often in the absence of public commentary.
NOT ‘PRUDENT’
The jury urged county
supervisors and others to follow COIN’s more exhaustive open government
process, giving taxpayers independent, interim reports on how pay and benefit
pacts are progressing, letting the public chime in long before decisions are
final — and making public officials more accountable for the result of benefits
that consume agency budgets.
The jury noted that the
negotiation process itself would not be public, but more information about it
would be disclosed. In Marin, public officials exclude local residents “from
input until it is too late for a reasoned public dialogue,” jurors noted. Hymel
response “partially disagreed,” saying all labor pacts are approved following
public notice.
Hymel’s response indicated
that while the county already uses an outside negotiator for talks with many of
its 12 unions, it “isn’t necessary or efficient to use an outside negotiator in
every contract negotiation.” The county provided more detailed cost information
on recent labor deals, but providing costs of “every single proposal” floated
during negotiations “is not fiscally prudent,” especially since many are
dropped, he added.
Jury recommendations to adopt
the COIN program and its specific procedures before next June require “further
analysis,” he added. When the analysis will be completed was left up in the
air.
“We agree that the intent of
COIN is to mandate transparency in government decision-making, allowing
residents to be informed and to participate in public discussions of how their
tax dollars are spent,” the administration said.
Marin’s Citizens for
Sustainable Pension Plans urged county supervisors to adopt the COIN plan in
April, but the program drew heated protests from union representatives. Union
negotiators have fared well in closed-door sessions with the county over the
years, and some fear more public scrutiny would stir political pressure forcing
elected officials to hold the line. County supervisors, most of whom receive
hefty campaign contributions from employee unions, expressed lukewarm interest
in COIN at the time, calling aspects of the plan challenging but worth
exploring.
The county board, local city
councils and five special district boards are compelled to make formal
statements on COIN because they must respond to jury reports that address them.
“Although Marin County
residents pay taxes to support decision by the Marin County Board of
Supervisors and the city and town councils, there are numerous times when no
transparency into the background of those decisions is made to the public,” the
jury said.
The issue,
as the jury framed it, is “What should be disclosed to the residents of Marin,
and when?”
August 24, 2015
Marin
Independent Journal
By
Nels Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment