Proposition 104, a ballot initiative that would require open meetings for school boards during collective bargaining, is not a good idea. In the first place, bargaining on behalf of schools is ordinarily done by administrators on behalf of the board rather than by board members. Requiring that bargaining-related meetings between board members and administrators would expose the employer’s strategy to the teachers union. Even assuming that the proposed initiative would apply to only bargaining sessions between administrators and union representatives, it would still be a bad idea and be an obstacle to settlements. Unions are political organizations; those wanting to replace the elected officials would have the opportunity to use negotiation actions as political ammunition.

It should be noted that proposed settlements are virtually always presented to the membership for ratification with no details made available before the ratification presentation because it is so easy to derail a settlement. The parties also need to be able to negotiate how they are going to negotiate. Some choose interest-based bargaining, a relatively noncombative approach; some chose to start with extreme positions and reluctantly back off in a relatively combative dance toward each other. Threats, bluffs and lies are not unknown. An audience is likely to magnify unhelpful potentials.

To the extent that the purpose of the proposition is to allow the tax-paying public to have a voice in the outcome, it would be better to require that they, too, ratify the settlement. I don’t particularly like this alternative, but it would be better than trying to involve them in the negotiations. This from a retired person with 35 years of human-resources experience (much of it in labor relations), a year of teaching collective bargaining at the New York University Stern School of Business and participation in the 2007 Durango School District 9-R negotiations on the administrative side.

Rory Mullett

Hesperus