Reasonable people can agree that open and accountable government is generally a very good thing for taxpayers. It’s critical, though, that this transparency happens in a thoughtful way.
Proposition 104, which voters will see on their ballots this November, has a seemingly simple premise: to require any meeting of a school board or between any representative of employees and the district where a collective bargaining agreement is being discussed, to be open to the public. However, the key word there is “discussed,” because it could end up creating a lot of unnecessary confusion and bureaucracy for Colorado’s school districts and could end up costing taxpayers more money in the end.
By using the term “discussed” instead of “negotiated,” which is far more specific, everyday conversations that occur between teachers and administrators about things like snow days, student schedules, and professional development would have to be made open to the public under this measure. That’s why teachers, administrators and school executives all oppose this measure, because they shouldn’t have to be concerned about sending a press release out with 24 hours’ notice to have these common, vital conversations.
As a former superintendent, I can tell you that school districts and communities are wary (and weary) of unfunded mandates that are confusing, costly and difficult to implement. If the backers of Proposition 104 had worked with school districts on the measure, they could have avoided this major issue.
Proposition 104 is a one-size-fits-all approach being brought to our state by special interest groups. The principle of local control is extremely important in a state like Colorado, and this measure strips away the local control that school districts need to best serve their students and community. What is good for one school district is rarely good for every school district. In particular, the many rural districts with collective bargaining agreements will be disproportionately affected by this new mandate.
Proposition 104 is fiscally irresponsible. It provides no additional funding for local school districts to pay for the increased bureaucracy and legal bills that would be required to comply with this new statewide mandate, especially since it applies to everyday practices. At a time when districts face budget woes year after year, we don’t need yet another new measure that takes money out of the classroom. Again, if the language were more precise, then the costs would not be so high. But if legal counsel is needed to evaluate everyday practices, not only will that cost many billable hours, it also could grind districts to a halt. And it’s taxpayers who are ultimately on the hook for this increase in bureaucracy.
I’m not sure what problem it is we’re trying to fix with Proposition 104. The fact is that school districts can already choose to hold their negotiations in public, and many districts do just that. Douglas County, Jefferson County and Poudre School District are a few districts that come to mind. In Jefferson County, for instance, either side of the negotiating table can call for an open meeting and they often do. Other school districts choose to hold conversations in private, as they do not want to reveal their strategy too early in the negotiating process. The point is this: Opening negotiations to the public is already an option used by many school districts. It is a local choice by locally elected school boards.
Oversight is important, but this measure doesn’t just cover negotiations about how tax dollars are spent. It will require public meetings for almost everything regarding an individual teacher’s job. Colorado voters would be wise to do their homework on Proposition 104 so they can make an informed decision this November. Let’s keep local control in the hands of local districts.
Ranelle Lang has spent 40 years working in education, both inside the classroom and in administration. Most recently, she was superintendent of Greeley Public Schools.
