Municipal union contracts in Rhode Island are a big reason residents pay some of the highest property taxes in America. There are many reasons why contracts tend to be generous. One is that public employee unions are experts at negotiating — something that amateur elected officials often are not.
Another is that public employee unions are powerful political players who can use their resources to elect politicians who are beholden to them. Both sides of the negotiating table, in such cases, are effectively on the same team.
The General Assembly tilts the playing field further in behalf of public employee unions, through such measures as binding arbitration and evergreen contracts.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the public has little way of understanding complicated contracts that are written in what often seems to be a foreign language. The public has little access to proposed contracts. The potential cost to taxpayers is not laid out clearly. Politicians often vote on them before the public has time to analyze whether they are good or bad deals. Some contracts make reference to provisions in years of previous contracts that cannot easily be collated, making it impossible for the public to understand what is in them.
Some of these problems came to light during a recent brouhaha in Warwick over a new firefighters contract, which the City Council approved this week.
The council tried to rush through the very costly proposal on the Friday night before Christmas, when much of the public was distracted with the holiday rush. A public uproar ensued.
Citizens discovered ambiguities and errors in the contract language and that a fiscal note contained very limited details explaining how the estimated cost was reached.
Ken Block of the citizens group Watchdog RI offered an interesting proposal on these pages last Sunday (“Public must be informed about costly contracts”).
He called on the legislature to require cities and towns to provide greater transparency permitting the public to better understand and participate in the contracting process. Mr. Block suggested that the public be permitted to see a proposed contract and a detailed fiscal note well before a city or town council meets to vote on the contract.
Citizens should be granted the right to ask questions about contracts, and to query the author of the fiscal note.
Mr. Block believes that transparency is essential to protect the interests of taxpayers. If the public is not involved, a great deal of shenanigans may ensue.
“We see it time and again: small phrases buried in the depths of 100 pages of contract legalese that have enormous, long-term cost implications. And no one admits to knowing about them,” he wrote.
“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously observed.
We see that again and again in Rhode Island. When politicians know that someone is able to watch what they are doing, they behave differently — in general, with greater concern for the common good.
With Gov. Gina Raimondo joining in the betrayal of the taxpayers, the legislature last year pushed through evergreen contracts, despite loud warnings by city and town officials that such a measure will make it harder to obtain crucial concessions in the face of growing financial strain.
Is it too much to ask the legislature to do something for the taxpayers, and require greater transparency over contracts at the local level?