Teacher Negotiations and Secrecy

The BCCT opines on teacher negotiations and secrecy. I'm not taking any stance one way or another on this at present except to note that the taxpayers do not have a direct say in this particular scenario, and the board members do.

It also goes on to talk about how secrecy is applied: Tell the people about an hour beforehand and then approve it. What the public says at the microphone is irrelevant to the process.

That may be a surprise to the rest of the world, but it's routinely how business is done in Morrisville. The public can talk all they want, but they are irrelevant to the process. And yet, the only people who can change this are the people themselves.

Teacher contract talks Dealing in the dark
Public oversight would quicken the pace of negotiations and produce more reasonable demands and offers.

So teacher contract talks are “moving slowly” in Neshaminy. That’s what our headline said because that’s what the people involved in the talks told our reporter. And that’s all they’d say.

One of the problems with the way teacher contract negotiations are handled in Pennsylvania is the secrecy in which they’re shrouded. What teachers demand and what school districts offer remains a mystery to the people who have to pay for whatever the two sides ultimately agree to — taxpayers.

And taxpayers don’t find out how much they’ve been obligated to ante up until a deal is done. Oh, they’ll get a peek, as they did in Pennsbury a few years ago when copies of the tentative contract were made available about an hour before the school board voted on the pact.

In other words, it was a done deal. Didn’t matter what the people thought. The opportunity to comment was strictly token and, therefore, meaningless. Message to the people: You don’t count!

Look, we understand why contract negotiations are conducted in secret. And that’s fine in the private sector. But teachers don’t work for a private employer whose bottom line has little impact on the general public. They work for taxpayers. And tax payers ought to be able to monitor the process, if not have a say.

In fact, citizen oversight might quicken the pace of negotiations and foster more thoughtful settlements. Under the glare of a spotlight, neither side would want to appear unreasonable.

And just consider the impact of a teacher contract. Millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, not to mention the impact on the quality of education.

Think about it this way. Would we want local government officials to go behind closed doors to decide the fate of, say, a development project — only to emerge after a deal is done? Traffic, road, pollution, neighborhood impact and all other issues decided without citizen input or even awareness?

Here you go. Don’t like it? Who cares?

We don’t and wouldn’t tolerate that. And we shouldn’t tolerate secret contract negotiations for teachers.

Local activist Simon Campbell is pushing legislation that among other things would expose teacher contract negotiations to public oversight. It’s a good idea.

Back to Neshaminy. The last secretly negotiated contract in the district produced free benefits for teachers. Except for a co-pay on prescription drugs, Neshaminy teachers contribute nothing toward their health benefits.

We’d bet nobody working in the private sector has such a deal. We’d also bet that Neshaminy’s current contract would not include free benefits had negotiations been open to public scrutiny.

Any takers?