What rational argument can be made against open negotiations when it comes to Public contracts paid for with Public tax dollars?
Answer - NONE.
The handringing nonsense read from a Union-prepared script by the woman with the white sweater about "respectful and professional negotiations and Good relations with the Union" is exactly that, NONSENSE.
What do the parties have to hide such that they want to be in executive session? Perhaps it is their unprofessionalism, their ludicrous and unaffordable demands?
Very simply, without open sessions, what process does the SC follow to ensure that what they are offering and considering in "negotiations" is acceptable to the tax-paying public?
When we have contracts associated with other expenditures, such as to build a school, do we conduct bids in a Closed session? No, the request is a public document and the bid process is an open process.
Most importantly, the Teachers' Union goes back to their Flock to explain the terms & conditions of any proposed contract, requiring a vote of approval from the Flock before they can ratify a tenative contract.
In other words, the Union wants and has the right to review, explain, debate and vote upon any tenative contract, yet they don't want to afford the same opportunity to the Taxpaying public.
Can you say indefensible hypocrisy?
Simply, there is no rational argument that can be made against open nogotiations. School Committees need to grow a back-bone and change their mindset from "the Union won't like this" to a mind-set that says "the Taxpayers won't like this".
Start worrying about the Taxpayers' concerns and stop wringing your hands worrying about the Union's concerns.
Pull back the curtain and give the Public a good dose of the "Do it For the Children" Union antics.
In addition to that, imagine the entertainment value of watching and listening to the unprofessional and infantile antics of Patsy "I struggle mightily with basic math" Crowley in open session. Worth the price of addmission.
Just look at the situation in E Providence when the school committee wanted open negotiations. Every union hack went nuts. The unions were freaking out enough because we had a new no nonsense supt, and a lawyer who represents the school committee instead of being an extra lawyer for the union. This is part of the reason why still no contract. That, and the fact that Val Lawson, union hack president, won't even respond to the school committees request that let's get a contract. The unions are used to getting their way, they have a a good run all these years with school committees being run by cowards, who were former school or city employees, who would rather cave in to be sure of their re-election, than do the right thing for the students and taxpayers.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
What rational argument can be made against open negotiations when it comes to Public contracts paid for with Public tax dollars?
Answer - NONE.
The handringing nonsense read from a Union-prepared script by the woman with the white sweater about "respectful and professional negotiations and Good relations with the Union" is exactly that, NONSENSE.
What do the parties have to hide such that they want to be in executive session? Perhaps it is their unprofessionalism, their ludicrous and unaffordable demands?
Very simply, without open sessions, what process does the SC follow to ensure that what they are offering and considering in "negotiations" is acceptable to the tax-paying public?
When we have contracts associated with other expenditures, such as to build a school, do we conduct bids in a Closed session? No, the request is a public document and the bid process is an open process.
Most importantly, the Teachers' Union goes back to their Flock to explain the terms & conditions of any proposed contract, requiring a vote of approval from the Flock before they can ratify a tenative contract.
In other words, the Union wants and has the right to review, explain, debate and vote upon any tenative contract, yet they don't want to afford the same opportunity to the Taxpaying public.
Can you say indefensible hypocrisy?
Simply, there is no rational argument that can be made against open nogotiations. School Committees need to grow a back-bone and change their mindset from "the Union won't like this" to a mind-set that says "the Taxpayers won't like this".
Start worrying about the Taxpayers' concerns and stop wringing your hands worrying about the Union's concerns.
Pull back the curtain and give the Public a good dose of the "Do it For the Children" Union antics.
In addition to that, imagine the entertainment value of watching and listening to the unprofessional and infantile antics of Patsy "I struggle mightily with basic math" Crowley in open session. Worth the price of addmission.
Posted by: George Elbow at September 13, 2009 7:41 AMJust look at the situation in E Providence when the school committee wanted open negotiations. Every union hack went nuts. The unions were freaking out enough because we had a new no nonsense supt, and a lawyer who represents the school committee instead of being an extra lawyer for the union. This is part of the reason why still no contract. That, and the fact that Val Lawson, union hack president, won't even respond to the school committees request that let's get a contract. The unions are used to getting their way, they have a a good run all these years with school committees being run by cowards, who were former school or city employees, who would rather cave in to be sure of their re-election, than do the right thing for the students and taxpayers.
Posted by: kathy at September 14, 2009 10:30 AM