Conflicts Involving Local Government, Union Members, and Sister Locals in Rhode Island (Yes, Legislative Immunity Comes Up)
This year, the Rhode Island ethics commission, which has jurisdiction
over local governments, has been bouncing around the issue of conflicts
of interest relating to local officials' involvement in
negotiations with a union, where they or their spouse is a member of a
different local union that shares the same umbrella union and, often,
the same negotiators and some of the same funds. The public statements
on this issue, from representatives of unions and good government
organizations, and the quandaries of EC members make valuable reading.<br>
<br>
The great majority of the public officials involved are school board
members, police or fire commissioners, or council members who are
teachers or uniformed officers for another local government. Their
local unions are usually small and, therefore, negotiation personnel
come from the state umbrella union. In addition, part of the officials'
union dues go to the state union. And in many cases other local unions'
contracts are used for the sake of comparison, which means that the
result of one local union's negotiations can directly affect the
salaries and benefits of members of other local unions. Therefore, these public officials
are at worst conflicted between furthering the public interest and
their personal interest in giving the local union the best deal
possible, and at best appear to be so conflicted.<br>
<br>
But the Rhode Island EC, like many EC's, has allowed such officials to
participate in or vote on such negotiations (see <a href="http://www.ethics.ri.gov/advisory/individual/2009/2009-011.htm" target="”_blank”">the
latest
advisory opinion</a> on this issue).<br>
<br>
The first consideration of what to do with this problem was an EC
workshop on June 16, 2009 (see pages 7-14 of <a href="http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/minutes/151/2009/15277.pd…; target="”_blank”">the
EC
minutes</a>). Most of the speakers represented good government
groups, and they consistently saw such participation and voting as a
problem. One issue was the interpretation of the term "business
associate" to include only those in leadership positions in a union.
The speakers felt that membership alone was enough to give an official
a possible benefit and, therefore, a personal interest in the
negotiations and contract.<br>
<br>
The sole union representative went very far in his defense of the
status quo. "He represented that prohibiting a public official’s
ability to participate would fly in the face of long-standing protected
rights, including that of legislative immunity," arguing that the
collective bargaining process falls under legislative immunity.<br>
<br>
In other words, to allow union members to participate in negotiations with sister
unions, the state union is willing to undermine independent
ethics enforcement relating to Rhode Island local governments.<br>
<br>
Also, according to the minutes, he argued that "discriminatory
application of the class exception with certain persons, union members,
prohibited [them] from participating in the political process." By class
exception, he was referring to the fact that if someone benefits as a
member of a class (e.g., business owners), it is not considered a
conflict. He is right that the class exception should be defined more
clearly and so that it does not discriminate unjustly. But businesses
and accountants, for example, do not negotiate with local governments the way
government unions do, so it would not be just to treat them the same
way.<br>
<br>
And preventing union members from participating in negotiations with
sister unions is hardly a prohibition from participation in the
political process. It's not even a prohibition of serving on any
particular board.<br>
<br>
If unions have to go this far to preserve what should be of little
concern to them, it makes one wonder whether the conflict involved is
more serious than one thinks.<br>
<br>
Also of interest is <a href="http://www.ethics.ri.gov/about/minutes/mins/min10-06-09.htm" target="”_blank”">the
discussion on October 6</a> of how to approach changing the EC's policy
on this issue, whether by rulemaking or by a General Commission
Advisory (it's the second order of business). <br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>