Local pension reform activists wanted more, a lot more.
It is understandable why they would view it that way.
The path to the cuts in public services and increased local and state taxes is paved with decisions made in the raises in pay and benefits local agencies have approved over the past two decades.
The public, essentially, was left in the dark about the short- and long-term costs of those contracts, which in recent years have grown to comprise as much as 70 percent, if not more, of public agencies’ annual budgets. Typically, details were not disclosed — if at all — until a few days before they were approved.
Taxpayers had to rely on their elected officeholders to represent their interests at the negotiation table.
Now, at a point where retiree pension and health-care costs have skyrocketed and forced agencies to lay off workers, cut services and raise taxes and fees, many taxpayers are wary of officeholders’ decisions. They want to see what’s going on, before the details get routine approval.
Some county supervisors have promised that they will adopt new policies that will give the public more time — at least 14 days makes sense — to review proposed contract changes before they are up for approval. Other public boards across the county should do the same, letting the public know not only how much of a pay raise workers will get, but the short-term and legacy costs of those raises, pension benefits and work schedule changes.
The local pension reform group, Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans, and the 2014-15 county grand jury want to see agencies pass ordinances that would require more public information about the closed-door deliberations. At the very least, agencies should adopt policies providing greater public review of proposed contract changes.
We don’t believe that many local officeholders had any idea of the financial risks of the contracts they approved before the recession hit. They should have. They thought they were approving contracts that treated workers fairly and tried to retain them in a competitive marketplace.
But they also made promises that are consuming a much larger share of the local tax revenue. That rising tide of expenses has led to layoffs, reductions in public services, increases in taxes and fees and long-term debt.
A “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” attitude toward taxpayers doesn’t wash anymore, despite unions’ argument that talks should remain behind closed doors and that voters should trust the people they voted to represent them.
Unions don’t have any trouble complaining publicly when they don’t think they are being paid enough. Public release of financial details of proposed contracts that they favor should not be kept from taxpayers, whose tax dollars are covering their costs.
Public agencies should make it a priority to tell the public about the short- and long-term costs of these contracts, well before they are to be voted on. The public has every right to be informed and involved in this important decision-making process.
The public should not have to hunt down the information. And designating issues to an agenda’s “consent calendar” — a collection of business decisions that officials determine don’t need public discussion or they don’t want any — sends the wrong message.
County officials say they can’t change policies when they are wrapping up the latest wave of contract talks. They have said, however, they would do a better job of providing the public with more details and more time to review the contracts.
After this round is completed, they will consider new policies.
That’s a promising start, and officeholders should make it a priority, including not letting contracts be buried on agendas and even asking staff to openly and publicly report on the costs of any changes before they are voted on.
Supervisor Damon Connolly said he’s worried that releasing details about negotiations will lead to grandstanding that could get in the way of agreements. We’re more worried about taxpayers being left in the dark.
The public has every right to know.
