March 23, 2007

Questioning Reed Reform No. 10

Disagreement over collective bargaining openness with City, SJPD and Fire Fighters Local 230

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

Since January, questions have swirled about one Reed Reform in particular, No. 10, on the opening up of records regarding closed session deliberations between the city and the San Jose Police Officers Association and the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 230.

During various council meeting discussions, there was some doubt as to whether releasing such proceedings to the public was legal and would allow openness on both sides.

The incident was brought up again this past week, when Vice Mayor Dave Cortese suggested the Rules Committee discuss the waiver of the closed session privilege and the public release of deliberations leading to the most recent agreement with the two unions and the city. The Rules Committee, however, suggested that the reform continue to be studied while waiting for the Sunshine Task Force to decide how open this area actually needs to be.

“We are presently not doing anything with this until we hear what the Sunshine Task Force decides,” said Rabia Chaudhry, Cortese’s chief of staff.

"There is an unhealthy amount of misperception surrounding the police and fire contracts," said Cortese in a release regarding the issue. "Waiving the privilege and sun-shining the discussions behind these processes seems both legally appropriate (once the contracts have been ratified) and vital to ensuring the public's right to know that their elected officials are guiding contract negotiations with integrity and honesty, while also improving morale amongst our rank and file."

Police Officer and President of the SJPOA, Bobby Lopez, agrees with the idea in principal, but said he disagrees with it in actual use, citing concern that too much openness might hinder the bargaining process and “negates the ability to freely express yourself,” he told the Times.

“The consensus is okay, it is politically expedient but it may not be the best thing for collective bargaining,” Lopez added.

Instead, he suggested that it might be better, and keep things more open, if there is a summarization of the topics to be discussed prior to the bargaining and, if necessary, a summarization of the discussions after the agreements. The idea is less dramatic, but Lopez said it would promote more openness in discussions between the union and the politicians.

In his memo to the Rules Committee, Cortese noted that collective bargaining agreements constitute 62 percent of the city budget, but most of the deliberations are conducted in closed sessions.

“Allowing discussions to remain privileged after the fact is not in the spirit of open government because the city has concluded its negotiations and our position no longer needs to be protected. …This should be the case for all of our collective bargaining contracts. A decision to waive privilege in this instance will not only help dispel any misperceptions individuals may have about these two bargaining processes (which if left unchecked might otherwise have a debilitating effect on morale) but will also demonstrate the city council’s wholesale support for reform and readiness to practically apply them to real-life situations,” according to Cortese’s memo.

Reiterating his concerns, Lopez said the idea is the right thing for politicians, but he worries that such rules will limit negotiations.

“How much business can get done if the proceedings are over scrutinized?” he said.

The agreement with the SJPOA was adopted in December 2005 and the agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 230, is nearing award, according to the Vice Mayor’s office, which also indicated that there has been considerable public interest in both processes with significant misperceptions.

Sharp criticisms has at times been levied at members of the San Jose City Council and the Police and Fire Retirement Board for playing partisan politics in the negotiations of these contracts, Cortese said in the memo. Because much of the deliberations leading to the ratification of the SJPOA agreement and the upcoming Local 230 agreement have occurred behind closed doors, there has been no opportunity to publicly clear the air without violating the closed session privilege, according to Cortese.