I'm all for community involvement in policy-making discussions but you're opening up a Pandora's Box of troubles to allow the public to participate in the negotiating of a deal. It would be similar to allowing the audience to talk out loud about the cards being held by the poker players.

GS:

Is this the whole you agree in principle that people should know what's going on in labor negotiation and land negotiation, but it would create all sorts of problems, so we shouldn't do it argument again? :)

No. In this case, I am MORE adamantly against it. Whether the public knows what's going on or not isn't an issue but including public involvement directly at the negotiating table is a recipe for chaos. I can't imagine anything else in a system where those public officials responsible for negotiating a deal are required to poll and debate with voters on every turn of a negotiation. God, a simple change to a union dental plan could end up requiring an inordinate amount of time while most other contracts would degenerate into chronic strikes and slowdowns while police or nurses or teachers waits years for a negotiation to resolve itself.

What ever happened to using the ballot box to punish and reward official incompetence or corruption? I'm not sure I care for this idea of creating new and increasingly complicated and likely bloated sub-systems to address every different, possible failure or shortcoming of our present system...in the name of ethics and public scrutiny. It all becomes so "Brazil"!

GS:

I'd just like to know what type of discussions are going into the number one expenditure in government-- personnel services. With all the unfunded pension problems developing, maybe it'd be better for the public to be aware in greater detail of what is going on.

I don't see open government as a serious danger the way you've made it out to look, but that's your opinion.

GS:

How would you propose a voter make a key judgement to either vote for or against someone if they do not have real information to understand why their public officials approved a pension and benefits package that will mortgage the community's future?

There are two issues being raised now: 1) public input in the negotiation process and 2) the public's need to be informed about issues related to matters that come up as part of negotiations. I feel its counterproductive for the public to participate in negotiations but I feel the public should have access to all salient information before and after negotiations.

I don't see any reason why union negotiations should be exempt from open meeting laws. Orange County is a great example of what happens when these deals are made behind closed doors without any public scrutiny. The only groups who stand to benefit by keeping everything under a shroud of secrecy is labor unions. The problem with the current arrangement is that nobody at the table is representing the taxpayers. I suppose some would argue that our elected officials represent the public, however, when many of those same elected officals are receiving contributions from the same labor unions they are negotiating with who do you suppose they are truly representing?

Given that Gary's wife is a public school teacher his family benefits from the status quo, so I'm not surprised he is opposed to opening public employee union negotiations up to scrutiny.

GS:

If an individual can speak out and follow a land development in their neighborhood, why can't they speak out and follow things that impact their budget or the future fiscal health of their community?

It just doesn't make sense, particularly in light of the fact that personnel service expenditures and benefits are the number one expenditure in government and impact the bottom line of service levels in the community?

The Orange county article also states that union members outside the negotiating team would benefit from being able to see an open process as well.

Besides, if public officials are making all the right choices, why would they worry if someone showed up at a meeting and watched the deliberations or even spoke about them?

The State of California is the only state to have "The Brown Act".(Just thought I would mention it)

People CAN follow negotiations and speak out freely on everything. But that's a different matter than having people participate in a union contract or a land acquisition negotiation.

With the public looking over their shoulders and complaining during a negotiation how long do you think it will be before public officials stop making their own decisions and instead start polling the public during each round of a negotiation? Isn't that a recipe for stalemate or worse?

If that works for you then why not assign public advocates to each office holder, deputy and firefighter...to look over their shoulders and make sure each individual employee is doing everything correctly? We could have a team of citizens at large assigned to each judge to make sure he's ruling in the public's interest. It certainly would increase accountability dramatically but I'm guessing that nothing would ever get done except to ceate a bigger bureaucracy and a less efficient government. And then someone would certainly stand up one day and say, "We need some way of checking on the checkers, to make sure they're accountable for THEIR decisions." Its neverending.

Negotiations are adversarial in nature and injecting a third adversary (The Public) into often heated discussions can quickly become a worse solution than holding the two adversaries responsible AFTER the fact.

That's baloney. Having public disclosure will not result people will be looking over the shoulders of individual employees or anything like that. Nor does this require members of the public to actually be at the negotiating table as GS is suggesting. Public agencies are subject to the Brown Act and negotiate contracts all the time without members of the public present. The only requirement is that all decisions are made in public, decision makers do not discuss the issue outside of public meetings, all information is disclosed to the public, and that the public has an opportunity to express their views.

Gary is grossly overstating the impact the Brown Act would have on labor negotiations. But as I said earlier, his family benefits from the status quo so he is hardly objective on the subject.

Scott Blough,
Do you know if the rumor is true that the White House had the flag lowered to half staff to mark the passing of Pinochet? If so, was that ethical? Should that decison have been made in public?

While I do believe Pinochet should have been prosecuted for the atrocities under his regime (and a lowered flag out of line), I thought you might like to hear the story from the perspective of some Chileans I know who lived through the coup and the times thereafter.
Allende was not a socialist, he was a Communist. The Communist Party was one of many in Chile. They worked very hard to educate and organize, preparing for future elections. While most Chileans (from Santiago - that's where almost all lived) summered at the beach, the Communists held classes in rhetoric and public speaking. They were on a mission. They cared more than the rest, who were perhaps dissatisfied with their government, but not willing to give up their free time to do anything about it. All the Communists had to do was win an election by a plurality, or more votes than any other party (there were many), but not requiring more than 50%. They achieved this in 1968 when Allende won the election for President of Chile by about 1/3 of the vote, but without a majority of support by the people.
The Communists, once in power, gutted the Treasury under the direction of the Soviet Union. After a couple of years, staple foods were scarce. My own mother-in-law talked of having to stand in line almost all night for a cup of cooking oil.
There were laws in Chile outlawing weapons in the hands of citizens, and so they could not stage any kind of defense or upprising as they saw their country deteriorate. The Chilean military saw Chile becoming another Cuba, or Communist stronghold in Latin America. The military staged a coup d' etat (supported by the U.S unofficially), which most Chileans celebrated, and they considered Pinochet the savior of their country. As the Treasury had been gutted, most citizens gladly gave up their wedding rings to jump-start the government. They proudly wore a copper band to show they had given up their rings to the government.
Pinochet set up a military government to re-establish order in the country. He brought in economists, such as Milton Friedman from Chicago and other consultants, to help set up a government and economy that would thrive and prosper, and promised Democratic elections once the country was on its feet again.
The government did prosper, and developed into the most stable economy in Latin America. The problem was, Pinochet would not leave. He couldn't give up his power. This is what happens when politicians are treated as more than mortal. He did not allow Democratic elections until after a couple assassination attempts on his life. Once he gave it up, the country did continue to thrive under Democracy. It was then that the country felt free to re-examine the ruthless tactics that Pinochet used to take over and control the country. Many many lives were lost. Many people fled the country and did not see their familes for years. Back during the time of the coup, the citizens considered it necessary - as the cost of war to take back their country. In the 21st Century, they look back and see the individual losses to families and their country and are ashamed that they nearly deified Pinochet.
The current president of Chile is a woman, whose father was part of the military during the coup, but he protested and fought within the military, was beaten, and later died of his injuries. The current president is a leftist/socialist. Many in the country worry that her leanings will hurt the capitalist economy that has thrived for many years. (You probably eat grapes, salmon and avocadoes from Chile in our off-season) The economy suffers through cycles similar to ours in the U.S - even had a significant recession some years back ("la rece") but bounced back.
This may not all be exactly factual, but it is my general understanding of what happened under Allende and Pinochet by what has been told to me by Chileans. I thought some might be interested.

P.S. I know the above was a bit "off topic" (i.e. Brown Act) but I think there are a lot of lessons ironies about government to be learned in the story.

Cathy Carlson from TO here: Leslie, thanks for sharing this perspective on Chile. Yours is the most interesting post I've read in weeks, and the only one I've bothered to comment on since Election Day. Keep writing!

Call me, and I'll fill you in on what's going on in TO at the CVUSD--more disregard for the federal NCLB regulations and also our campaign laws by the "old timers" on the Board. I'm reporting their numerous and constant violations to the DA tomorrow. I gave them a month's warning, but they stubbornly would not comply. Oh, well...consequences! The bigger they are, the harder they fall. I doubt that the Star will cover this, but we'll see.

The Brown Act is an inconvenience for many elected officials who believe that the best way to deal with their constituents is the same technique used for growing mushrooms: keep them in the dark and buried in a plentiful supply of fresh steer manure.

I'm also going to report to the DA that I know who was on the grassy knoll and Princess Diana was killed in a secret plot by Martians. I doubt the Star will cover this, because they are all in on the conspiracy with the school board, James Bond and radical democrats.

I wish someone would pay attention to me. I have super triple security clearance and I am very important. You'll all be sorry when you go to maximum security prison for saying we have purple ribbon schools. I'm going to the AG and demand justice. There is no such thing as purple ribbons and I will never shut up about it, ever!

I'm also going to get you and your little dog too.

I think Cathy should write a guest blog for Tim Keaney or Brian Dennert about the topic so we can all see her "evidence". Maybe Oliver Stone could make a script for it.