Unless the discussion involves nuclear launch codes or some other sensitive element of national security, secrecy is the enemy of good government. That is true of the federal government, at the state level and most especially in local affairs. And there is no reason that principle should not also extend to schools.
Colorado Proposition 104 would require that school board negotiations with teachers’ unions be conducted in open meetings. That public schools, which are spending the public’s money, should do business in public only makes sense.
The measure’s purpose and meaning are simple and clear: School board negotiations relating to collective bargaining must be conducted in open meetings, not in executive session. It should be noted that this specifically applies to collective bargaining. Negotiations for individual employees’ contracts are not covered.
The idea is the brainchild of the libertarian anti-tax think tank, Independence Institute, and its president, Jon Caldara. Schools are a big part of everyone’s property taxes and, as Caldara points out, teachers’ union contracts make up a huge part of schools’ budgets. Not only should how that money is spent be transparent to the taxpayers, so, too, should be how that was decided. The process, not just the outcome, is the public’s business.
The opposition comes from those who would be directly affected. The Colorado Education Association opposes Proposition 104, as does the Colorado Association of School Executives and teachers unions throughout the state.
A lot of these groups’ worries, however, are the same complaints always voiced in opposition to openness. Public scrutiny will interfere with the collective-bargaining process. It will lead to negotiating through the media. Public involvement will complicate the process. But doing the right thing right often complicates matters. Fairness, effectiveness and honesty often conflict with efficiency.
One fear is that Proposition 104 is worded so vaguely as to risk prompting lawsuits in its implementation. That concern is valid, but not insurmountable. As a statutory change, Proposition 104 can be modified by the state Legislature should the need arise. In the meantime, voters should support this call for openness in the bargaining process. Vote yes on Proposition 104.
Proposition 105 would require all food sold in Colorado to carry a label if it was “produced with genetic engineering.” On its face, the proposal is a good one. Consumers should be armed with as much information as possible about what they are eating, and because the health effects of genetically modified organisms are very much in debate, it is reasonable to make their whereabouts in the food supply known. Doing so on a state-by-state basis, however, is impractical and inefficient. Therefore, we oppose Proposition 105.
Estimates show that GMOs are used in more than 80 percent of the food in North America – fresh, processed, pre-packaged or otherwise. It is a safe bet, then, that most food has had some degree of genetic engineering in its background. Adding a labeling requirement that applies only to foods sold in Colorado – but carries with it no penalty for failing to adhere to the rule would be somewhat redundant given the widespread use of GMOs. Perhaps a more meaningful change to labeling requirements would be to encourage producers of GMO-free food to boast of the status on their products’ labels.
Ultimately, though, it is a problem that the Food and Drug Administration must address. Crafting a patchwork labeling and regulatory process for GMO materials in foods creates an onerous environment for state agencies and food producers alike. While consumers have a right to know what is in their food, the burden falls to the federal government to implement and enforce the notification requirement. Vote no on Proposition 105.
