The saying, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” can be said for the City of San Jose’s closed session meetings. In a prior blog, I wrote about what I could of closed sessions called The Mystery of Closed Sessions.
Closed session attendees sign a paper with legal verbiage at each meeting signifying the importance of confidential information shared at the meeting. As mentioned in my prior blog, closed session tackles topics like labor, litigation, real estate and personnel matters.
As a side note, I was able to attend several of the public labor negotiation sessions involving the city attorney union. I found the process valuable. Valuable to hear both sides discuss their viewpoints live, and it served the attorneys well from my perspective. I hope other unions take their negotiations public in future years.
Quite often in closed session the Council will take votes on important items even though the public does not have the opportunity to hear what is said or voted on. The information shared and comments made in closed session is not supposed to leave the room. These can be on important matters, however again the vote cannot be revealed.
So, what I can say, there is sometimes vigorous debate and not all votes during closed session are unanimous. I understand the need for closed session but feel that I am restricted in saying what I said or how I voted. Videotaping closed session for me would be alright in case it was needed in the future. We do audio-record real estate discussions currently in closed session today so perhaps closed session will keep evolving. For me I would just as well have the closed session as a public session, however what I may want may interfere with the right of another.
> As mentioned in my prior blog, closed session tackles topics like labor, litigation, real estate and personnel matters.
Labor?
If public employee unionism requires closed sessions, then that is a perfect justification for NOT having public employee unions. If public employee unionism prevents openness, then get rid of it.
Litigation?
I think there should be a lot more visibility by the public into what litigation the city is involved in and how much it costs. I am really appalled by “out of court settlements” where the public has no way of knowing how badly they got screwed, and which politician or bureacrat is responsible for the screw up.
Real Estate?
Maybe the city is doing way, way too much wheeling and dealing in real estate. More visibility is needed.
Personnel?
This seems to me like an all-purpose justification for any kind of secrecy. “Personnel is policy”.
Any policy discussion can be turned into a personnel matter.
Also, personnel “actions” are the bread and butter of political patronage.
I would really like to know more about what personnel matters the city thinks require so much secrecy. Is department manager X sleeping with an employee’s wife? Is employee Y an underperformer?
Lurid. Embarrassing. Contentious. But why does it need to be kept from the public?
And this is suppose to be a transparent government, according to Reed’s campaign promise. This administration consists of a bunch of lies, smoke and mirrors. With all that they have done, I feel violated.
The Police union asked the city to conduct open negotiations. The City said, “NO.”
Since you were willing to abolish unions on the grounds that you thought they want to keep secrets, are yo willing to abolish the city on the same grounds?
How about a union that says they take the City at its word – 1) that there is no money and 2) it is pensions that are causing the problem.
That union offers a 2 year 8% salary cut followed by a permanent 5% salary cut in the third year, a reduction in retirement payout capped at 80% with a 2% COLA and a dollar amount cap at top step sergeant’s pay (who would want to promote to LT, Capt or Dep or Asst Chief) , abolish sick leave payouts. Esimated savings to the City over the next few years is in excess of $100mil.
The City rejects the offer in less than 5 minutes? Who is interested in saving the Taxpayers Money? The police or Chuck Reed?
PS: Police layoffs will be between 106 and 260 regardless
Because while our Mayor pretends to be about open government, he really isn’t. I know that the Unions want the negotiations to be taped and open. The City would not allow it.
The unions WANTED the negotiations to be open to the public so that the public could see for themselves that the unions aren’t the bad people. City didn’t want it. They are so foul. Hellbound.
Oh boy.
I think the unions are really dumb for wanting public negotiations.
I think the city government is really dumb for NOT wanting public negotiations.
Public negotiations would be DEADLY dull, and the public would very quickly get sick of all the self-serving union whining and demands.
Don’t you have better things to do than dance around, keeping the civic immortals happy with your music!
Sure you want open government. That is why you have the “Sunshine” agreement, then “YOU” go and put Measure V and W on the ballot on the last day and give no “Sunshine” and “YOU” do it with closed doors!! Come on don’t be phony! Everyone knows Ex City employees will eventually run for Council to replace incompetence and secret discussions. Wake up people it is time for change of Council and Mayor! When “I” run for Council I will plainly state that Public Safety is No.1 with no cuts! Check Mate you lose!
I have not seen a written proposal or heard of another union wanting to conduct their negotiations in public as the city attorney bargaining unit has done. In the past I heard a union wanting to conduct negotiations as part of a Council meeting however that is impractical since it would add hours to Council meetings each week for just one union.
The bargaining needs to be done with the negotiation team and not the city council in the current San Jose form of government (strong mayor form of government would be different) I thank the city attorney bargaining unit for being the first to go forward with public negotiations.
So, Councilman Pier…when you wrote that you hope other unions take their negotiations public in future years, and the unions in fact tried this and were rejected, what is your response? Are you, as a councilman, inspired to take a stand on this, agendize this item for council session (public, please) and work to bring about needed change? I feel like your post ends in a shrug.
So for the unions to get public negotiations they have to make a written request to the negotiation team? Good to know.
And it’s not really surprising that the city attorneys were the only group who knew this; they probably did the legal review of the rules.