The public has a right to know about how Marin’s elected officials strike pay and benefit deals with public employees, the county’s civil grand jury says.
The jury Thursday urged county supervisors and city councils across Marin to let taxpayers see how pay and benefit pacts progress and what they cost, giving them a chance to chime in before decisions are final — and making officials more accountable for the result.
The jury’s report, “The Need for Labor Negotiation Transparency,” urges officials to adopt a formal negotiation process used in Orange County, Beverly Hills and several other Southern California cities called Civic Openess In Negotiations, or COIN.
The program requires public agencies to hire independent professional negotiators and an outside auditor, issue a 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 involving labor and management, it is publicly disclosed, along with costs. Tentative agreements would be made public a week before their consideration, and a final agreement would be placed on the agenda for discussion for two consecutive meetings of the agency board, giving taxpayers time to weigh in.
“Although Marin County residents pay taxes to support decisions 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?” More disclosure than now provided is needed, jurors concluded.
There is now little or no time for the public to react to city or county agenda announcements of labor pact deals, and little advance disclosure of fiscal impacts in a process that excludes taxpayers “until it is too late for a reasoned public dialogue,” the jury observed.
Marin residents have “minimal opportunity” to review and comment on labor issues, and the COIN process can be put to work without affecting the manner in which tentative agreements are negotiated, the jury said.
The COIN process, it asserted, illuminates “decisions made during negotiations that lead to a tentative agreement.” Negotiations are not held in public, and the program does not allow the public to negotiate. It does require periodic reports about proposals and their costs — and time for the public to react to a final package before it is adopted.
“The COIN process mandates transparency in government decision-making, allowing residents to be informed and to participate in public discussion of how their tax dollars are spent,” the jury reported.
The panel urged the county board and local city councils to adopt COIN ordinances no later than July 1, 2016, including providing for independent negotiators and auditors, fiscal analysis, public disclosure and weeks-in-advance notice before agreements are adopted. It sought formal responses from the county board and Marin’s 11 city councils.
Marin’s Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans urged the county board to adopt the COIN plan in April but it drew heated protests from union representatives. County supervisors expressed lukewarm interest, calling aspects of the plan challenging but worth exploring.
Supervisor Judy Arnold at the time said supervisors will never “open existing contracts” and cut benefits. Arnold, questioned about the grand jury report Thursday, said she intended “to put the report where I put all jury reports,” and then, told she would be quoted, added, “…in a bag to take home and read this weekend.”
Roland Katz, head of the Marin Association of Public Employees, could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday, but made clear last April he was no fan of the COIN program.
Jody Morales, head of the sustainable pension group, was jubilant after reading the jury report, noting it will force elected officials at the Civic Center and in city halls across Marin to issue formal responses.
“We will now have answers as to how our elected officials feel about this critical issue,” Morales told pension critics in an email blast. “We should all offer our thanks to this, and all grand juries, for their vigilance on our behalf.”
