SUPPORT HB 206: Transparency of Public Union Negotiations

Right to Know Law is not “anti-union,” nor are the changes in House Bill 206 radical. This legislation proposes changes that would require public union negotiations to be conducted in public.

Related: Some Unions Are Forging Signatures to Collect Dues from Their Members

If the bill passes, each party may still consult with their attorney to develop a negotiating strategy. This is done in a “non-meeting,” which is not public.

It is the actual negotiations between the two parties that must be conducted publicly. This change would provide transparency for the public.

Many states already have transparency, that is, no exemption from their Right to Know, or open meetings laws, for collective bargaining.

• Fifteen (15) states require government employees and public bodies to negotiate in PUBLIC. 
• One (1)  state, Alaska, requires school districts specifically to hold PUBLIC negotiations.
• Three (3) more states require contracts to be made PUBLIC before ratification by a public body.
• Three (3) states do NOT allow government employees to collectively bargain at all. 

In New Hampshire, collective bargaining may be conducted away from any public scrutiny.

Under existing state law, if both sides agree on negotiating in public, they may do so. However, if taxpayer representatives request open negotiations, while the union representatives object, an old New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board ruling requires both parties to conduct negotiations that are closed to the public.

This is why state action is needed to change the law to require both parties to do the right thing. Making negotiations public will give members of both parties insight into how their interests are being represented and advanced, with accountability for local elected officials and elected union leadership.

For those of us who have taken part in collective bargaining negotiations, it’s evident that certain behavior observed during negotiations would likely not occur in public. The public assumes a polite exchange of facts and arguments during negotiations, which in my experience is often not the case.

Pulling back the curtain of secrecy from these negotiations would hold elected representatives on both sides to a greater level of accountability. It would give union members a better understanding of how their elected union leadership is working on their behalf. It would give taxpayers a good look at how their elected representatives are negotiating for them. Voters and union members would both benefit from increased transparency.

Some may object that transparency is an obstacle to reaching compromises. Exactly what kind of compromise requires secrecy when bargaining over the use o public funds? The resulting compromise will eventually become public anyway. Why not make the intermediate steps of negotiations public too?

Did you know that the every collective bargaining member is given the terms of a proposed contract and they VOTE to accept or reject its terms before the union leadership signs the proposed contract?

How about the public? Is every taxpayer given the terms of the proposed contract and allowed to VOTE to accept or reject its terms before their representatives on the school board signs?  No, only taxpayers in SB 2 towns have an opportunity to VOTE on proposed contracts before school board representatives sign the proposed contract.

Taxpayers in municipalities are kept in the dark. Their school board members are able to review the details of a proposed contract before signing off on it. Municipal taxpayers only get to see the terms the tentative agreement after it’s approved by the union membership and the school board, before it goes to the board of aldermen or selectmen for the final approval of the increased funding amount.  Municipal taxpayers are at a clear disadvantage, even though this is their money!

This bill does not attempt to level the playing field. It does not give all taxpayers the opportunity to VOTE before their school board representatives sign a proposed contract.  It only makes the negotiating process public, which is reasonable.

There have been no problems in states that require public negotiations.  It’s fear mongering to suggest that New Hampshire would be any different.

In times of social unrest due to mistrust of public institutions, it is incumbent on state legislators to require as much transparency as possibly on the conduct of government affairs. This is especially true in cases where the majority of local tax dollars are currently allocated to fund public union contracts.

HB 206 was introduced by Rep. L. Turcotte (Straf. 4) at the request of the School District Governance Association — NH.

SDGA-NH is a private organization whose mission is to give voters a voice by empowering elected school district officials to reclaim control over budgets and curriculum. In addition to offering seminars/webinars to educate and inform school board and budget committee members, we have a legislative agenda of increasing transparency in the budgeting and collective bargaining process in school districts.

This is the second time SDGA has supported legislation for negotiation of collective bargaining contracts to be done in public. This bill passed the Senate in 2018 (SB420).

SDGA is grateful to Rep. Turcotte and the other sponsors (Rep. Nunez, Hills. 37; Rep. Cordelli, Carr. 4; Rep. M. Moffett, Merr. 9) for working to advance this Right to Know change again.

For more information, please contact SDGA-NH at Sdgaofnh@gmail.com

Donna Green,  president of  School District Governance Association — NH

Giving voters a voice by empowering elected school district officials to reclaim control over budgets and curriculum.