Washington State Supreme Court opposes transparent government

Lincoln County has always been a huge proponent of transparency. We believe, as elected officials, that we should not get to decide what the public should or should not know about how their tax money is spent. In fact, in 2016 the Board of County Commissioners passed a Transparency Resolution stating that all future union contract negotiations will be conducted in a manner that is open to the public. Not for public involvement or input but so citizens and employees alike can see how their representatives negotiate what is the single biggest expense for taxpayers-- salaries and benefits.

Lincoln County was the first public entity in the state to do this. Negotiating in public has broad, local and state support. Every major newspaper Editorial Board in the state has advocated for this and have published many articles supporting what we have done here in Lincoln County to bring better transparency to government.

Other counties and school boards soon followed suit. Including the City of Spokane who put a Charter Amendment on their ballot to conduct collective bargaining negotiations in public. It passed with broad voter support.

Several unions challenged the will of the voters through legal action. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who last December, determined that the City of Spokane’s voter approved charter amendment, was unconstitutional. This unfortunate ruling effectively negates the years of effort that Lincoln County and other courageous local governments have done to bring transparency to the people we all serve.

The manner in which the court came to their ruling is nothing short of laughable. When the county passed the Transparency Resolution, the legality of it was thoroughly vetted by a host of legal experts on the matter. There is nothing in state law or contract language that prohibits local governments from doing this. In fact, the Washington State Constitution gives counties and cities explicit authority to make and enforce regulations, so long as they do not conflict with state laws.

Since there is no state law prohibiting open collective bargaining, the Supreme Court interpreted legislative “intent”. They relied on the statute that created the Public Employees Relation Commission (PERC) to make their case by using, out of context, the word “uniform”. The statute reads that it is the intent of the legislature to provide in public employment, a more “uniform” and impartial settlement of disputes between employers and employees and selection of bargaining representatives, by transferring jurisdiction of disputes to PERC.

The “intent” was to use PERC as a “more uniform way” to settle disputes. It is a very long stretch of the imagination to think that the legislature intended for collective bargaining to be closed from public view. If in fact, that was their “intent”, they would have specified the process in state law.

The Supreme Court came up with a twisted narrative to rule in favor of the public sector unions, who contribute to their campaigns, to prevent you from viewing the process of how your elected officials spend the bulk of your tax dollars. They should all hang their heads in shame and never be re-elected to serve the good people of the State of Washington.

The ruling does not mandate that bargaining be closed to the public- but it can only be open if both sides agree. Virtually all union officials have expressed their desire to not bargain in public. Since the Lincoln County Transparency Resolution was passed in 2016, the county has successfully bargained six local union contracts in meetings that were open to the public. Hopefully, in light of this unfortunate ruling, the unions will continue to bargain with the county in that same manner, which is open and transparent to the people we all serve.