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.

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.

But the Rhode Island EC, like many EC's, has allowed such officials to participate in or vote on such negotiations (see the latest advisory opinion on this issue).

The first consideration of what to do with this problem was an EC workshop on June 16, 2009 (see pages 7-14 of the EC minutes). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also of interest is the discussion on October 6 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).

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---