Sound Politics: Sewer of Corruption (XXVII)

February 21, 2007

Sewer of Corruption (XXVII)

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation made a public disclosure request last November for government documents generated during negotiations between the state and public employee unions:

to give legislators and the public a better perspective on how the contract was negotiated. In particular, EFF asked for the contract proposals the state gave to the union and received from the union, as well as the bargaining notes made by the state's negotiators during negotiations.

The unions filed suit in King County (where else) to prevent disclosure. A hearing is scheduled for March 9.

Today, 11 state House Democrats -- Williams, Conway, Hunt, Kirby, Green, Sells, Hasegawa, Appleton, Wood, Goodman, Ormsby plus Tom Campbell -- sponsored HB 2326 "Protecting the integrity of collective bargaining for public sector employees", which would exempt such documents from public disclosure.

All 12 sponsors have received oodles of campaign cash from the public employee unions.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 21, 2007 05:10 PM | Email This

Comments

1. When it comes to discrediting Republicans, the left leaves no stone unturned. Everything is open to the Media and the Public, and there are lofty orations about the importance of full disclosure.

But when it has to do with Democrats, suddenly they clam up tight and the orations of Civil Liberties and Protecting the Employee's right to confidentiality begin.

Always do as they say and not as they do.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 21, 2007 05:48 PM

2. verrrrry interestink . . .

Posted by: starboardhelm on February 21, 2007 06:00 PM

3. More dirty dealing from the Democrats in the legislature. This really smells like the sewer!

Another reason to wave "bye-bye" to this corrupt state.

Posted by: Clean House on February 21, 2007 06:21 PM

4. Ron Simms believes that all such documents should be exempt from public disclosure. In fact he has cost you millions holing on to documents he doesn't want reviewed.

Even Stefan has a pile of documents he is still waiting for I believe...

Posted by: GS on February 21, 2007 06:35 PM

5. I know now, at least, the dues stolen from my paycheck is at least being spent in the great tradition of Amerika, buying politicians.

I would hope the bill would, at least, have an emergency clause on it. It is definately an emergency not to have the light of day shine on the Union Lackeys who run those state departments. Who needs proposals at bargaining when when both sides of the table are union appointees.

Posted by: fRed on February 21, 2007 06:42 PM

6. Amazing how the dems keeping spitting on the public in so many ways.

Posted by: Michele on February 21, 2007 08:34 PM

7. Hey Dave. What Harry? The public thinks they need to know what the unions are doing. Screw 'em Harry. The public doesn't need to know any more than the rank and file union members do.

Posted by: the ghosts of dave beck and harry bridges on February 21, 2007 08:39 PM

8. With any luck, I'll see Tom Campbell at a Lincoln Day breakfast on Saturday, and can ask about this in his own habitat. Disgraceful. Public employee unions will continue to lighten our wallets for years to come.

Posted by: TacomaTed on February 21, 2007 09:16 PM

9. And just where do you think the 129 votes came from

Posted by: Lew on February 21, 2007 09:54 PM

10. Tacoma Ted, Tom Campbell is my representative and I just sent him an email and requested a response. He usually gets back within a few days and I am interested in his response. I made mention of the EFF's public records request and how this has the appearance of the legislature trying to cover up for the unions. I also mentioned that it is this kind of thing that creates a lack of trust in the government. I pointed out that it should be the publics right to know seeing that it is our tax dollars that pay the salaries of the state workers who in turn pay dues to the unions. I feel this alone should make it open to the public for scrutiny so we can ensure that there is no impropriety taking place with our tax dollars. When I get a response I will let you all know.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 21, 2007 10:59 PM

11. Almost every day, you make the case that special interest campaign contributions are corrupting our political system. But then you refuse to consider doing anything about changing the way we finance campaigns. Don't you think public financing would be better than this?

Posted by: Bob Koerner on February 21, 2007 11:33 PM

12. I am kind of torn on this issue. I don't like it when I can see government employees' salaries on the internet. But, on the other hand, I was into believing the teachers whines about being poor and underpaid. That is, until I saw what teachers really make (lbloom.com).

In cities, for example, litigation, personnel matters and real estate are exempt from open meetings. Should union negotiations also be exempt? However, I do want to know what is going on in this burgeoning drain on my wallet.

Sells, BTW, is a union labor leader in Snohomish County. The Rs didn't throw up a sacrificial cow in the last election, which hurt Halvorson's chances.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 06:43 AM

13. Unions can have all the confidential negotiations they want when they're negotiating with Boeing or any other private employer. However, I should think the company's stockholders and the board of directors have every right to know everything the negotiators are doing on the company's behalf.

That's exacty what EFF wants here. We, the citizens (stockholders) of Washington state, have every right to know what the negotiators are doing on our behalf when negotiating with our employees.

Now, for a further disturbing thought: are the negotiators also unionized public employees? If so, there's a massive conflict of interest.

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on February 22, 2007 08:47 AM

14. I don't know HL, but shouldn't some things we kept from us? Do we have a right to every conversation and every piece of paper our legislators and public employees put out?

Personally, I was quite shocked to see a couple of memos of mine from 30 years ago show up on a Google search. The time frame was when I was an employee of the State.

That memo, incidentally, was reasonable and was fit for consumption. Some of the things I worked on involved extensive negotiations and rough drafts. Why should those things be available for public consumption?

Just asking.

Posted by: swatter on February 22, 2007 11:12 AM

15. Yes, swatter, we do have a right to everything our public employees put out. They are public employees, remember? I am one of them. I think I have a right to know what the union and the Governor's negotiating team are deciding on "my behalf." I asked to observe the negotiations this past summer, and was told they were not open to the public, contrary to the Open Meetings Act.
As long as our tax dollars fund our public services, we have a right to see how they are being spent.
And to answer the question above, no, the Labor Relations Office is not "represented," therefore they aren't forced to pay dues. Neither are the employees of OFM, DOP, the Attorney General's office, nor the Legislators (including the Governor) and their staff. That's why it was so easy for them to sell the rest of us into indentured servitude.

Posted by: Indentured Servant on February 22, 2007 02:21 PM

16. As usual, the socialist state acts like a bunch of cockroaches who scurry away from sunlight. Theyknow that if the tax payers really know what goes on in Olympia, they'd be tossed out on thier butts. In some cases, maybe even jailed. When government tries to hide the way it does business, it is then time to be overthrown.

Posted by: Allan Rothlisberg on February 22, 2007 03:56 PM

17. I strongly agree that all matters concerning the union negotiations should be made available to the public.

However, as a state employee, I would like to point out that the union's presence has helped me and my colleagues in many ways. Prior to the union's involvement in 2005, I was paid almost 50% less than those doing my type of work in both the private sector and other public sector organizations. State workers had not received a COLA adjustment in nearly a decade, despite handsome raises for management and exlected offcials. All the while, the burden of healthcare and retirement costs were being shifted onto us. These problems are now (at least somewhat) alleviated.

Because of the union raises, I was able to finally afford a home, my healthcare contributions are fixed, and my retirement is secured. For a hard-working, degreed professional, my salary and benefits are now what they should be. Unfortunately, the one drawback of the union is that all workers, good and bad, receive equal treatment - no performance pay, etc. I suppose I can live with that, and hope to get a promotion eventually.

As a state employee, the effects of the union has been a net positive. I do, however, strongly agree that even a trashy organization like EFF should have rights to negotiation proceedings.

Posted by: Josh L on February 23, 2007 02:20 PM