A recent YourHub piece by the Denver Post‘s Clayton Woullard shines some light on the activities of the union’s local front group “Douglas County Classrooms,” and its forceful push to resist both expanded choice for families and a more accountable, performance-based school system. Unfortunately, the union-backed group’s self-serving message conflicts with some of the facts:

[Douglas County Federation field representative Mandy Sheets] also mentioned parents and teachers in Douglas County Classrooms are concerned by the amount of time the board is spending in executive session, the increased work load of high school teachers with a new schedule that is meant to save money, she said, while the district continues to grow its general fund balance. District officials have said the balance is at levels it requires in case of emergency.

Seems they’re concerned about a board spending too much time in executive session the same way that a Mafia enforcer might be concerned about his victim spending too much time in the hospital with broken knees. Behind the scenes, DCFT actively supported the ongoing lawsuit against the Choice Scholarship program. The lawsuit has contributed significantly to the board needing to spend decision-making time behind closed doors.

Union leadership also continues to complain about the district’s fiscally conservative practices. Try explaining to taxpayers, though, why they shouldn’t be happy with a stable budget that sustains teacher raises and a consistently high bond rating. After all, DCSD has focused support on students and classrooms, cutting from the central administration annual budget 20 full-time positions and $1.3 million (20 percent) over the past five years. DCFT could be upset because the board slashed 100 percent of taxpayer funds (roughly $300,000/year) used to pay for unaccountable union officers to leave the classroom.

As for the new high school schedule Sheets grumbles about, 90 percent of students surveyed like the the change. Without sacrificing overall instructional time, the plan grants more course options and flexibility. The top reason given by the handful who don’t like the change: “Some teachers have a negative attitude.” Hmmm… I wonder why?

Sheets also gripes that a part of the developing performance pay plan, known as “world-class education targets,” provide “no clarity” and ultimately no benefit to students. But the 100 Dougco teachers who have spent weekend hours collaborating to develop these targets certainly would have to disagree. Not only students and taxpayers, but also other teachers, are left under the bus by the union’s indiscriminate attacks.

Meanwhile, a relatively high-performing district continues to shine (19 John Irwin schools of excellence) while striving to build a system of greater excellence and making sure that all students’ needs are served. The high stakes of November’s Douglas County school board elections suddenly have become even clearer.

On two different dates in September, a couple of young people volunteered for the Independence Institute by calling around to the offices of various local Colorado Education Association (CEA) affiliates. They wanted to know if some union dues went to support political candidates and other campaigns. Many, many hard-working teachers understandably don’t have a clear sense of how it all works.

For years now CEA has operated the Every Member Option, or EMO, to fund state and local political campaigns. Our Independent Teachers website explains the process — a $39 annual refund available from CEA and a separate refund worth up to $24 from various locals. A teacher may have to write two letters to two different offices by two different deadlines to exercise their “voluntary” option.

Many of the union offices Kait and Bob called provided generally accurate information about how dues are used for politics, how much is taken from each member, and how to obtain a refund. It’s not surprising that no one volunteered the information about teacher member dues funding false and malicious 527 political ads. And almost no one who took the question by phone knew the exact amount of CEA’s refund, but you can hardly blame the individuals at the local union for failing to know every pertinent detail about the state union’s political program.

Teachers who join the local union also have to pay CEA & NEA dues, however, and may not easily distinguish how the various branches use their funds. One union deduction line item typically shows on a member’s pay stub, nothing to indicate separate amounts for separate offices, and especially not any separate item to indicate a refundable political contribution.

Much of the info may appear on the authorization form they signed when they first joined, but the system may have changed. Hence, a call to the union office for clarification should generate clear and straight answers. Unfortunately, not everyone who answers the phone and the questions is equipped with the correct information. Take the St. Vrain Valley Education Association (SVVEA) in Longmont:

No union dues money goes to candidates? The information provided Kait was egregiously incorrect. CEA’s small donor committee has contributed more than $130,000 directly to state-level candidates (all one party… I’ll let you guess) this year alone. SVVEA itself has contributed nearly $10,000, though all happened after the call was made.

The union’s receptionist deserves credit for correcting her error while talking with Bob three weeks later. Interestingly, she noted that no voluntary dues go to support federal candidates — though two years ago her union office nearly got in trouble for trying to slip some money from a state small donor committee to Congresswoman Betsy Markey’s reelection. While she got the facts on candidate giving correct, she only mentioned the $10 local political refund available and omitted mention of the CEA’s $39 refund.

Then there’s the Jefferson County Education Association, the CEA’s largest local, serving thousands of members:

On both the September 4 and September 27 calls, the receptionist repeated the same incorrect figures after volunteering to answer the question. She explicitly stated that each full-time member’s CEA and JCEA political refunds are worth $12 apiece ($24 total) rather than the correct $39 and $24 figures, respectively. A teacher could ask for the wrong amount and not get back what he or she is entitled.

Also, during the earlier call, Kait was told that the EMO funds mainly go to support the local mill and bond campaign, as well as school board races. The fact is JCEA has given considerably more to one party’s candidates this year than to support the 3A and 3B tax proposals.

No doubt the CEA and its local affiliates have made some improvements in their efforts to disclose the availability of member political refunds. A good start would be making sure all receptionists are prepared with a fact sheet at their disposal. Or maybe they all should just bookmark their Web browsers to the Independent Teachers website.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In the August 26 edition of the Post, Simpson offered up a flattering profile of new Colorado Education Association (CEA) president Kerrie Dallman. In the piece he notes her “collaborative work in Jeffco,” her “reputation for collaboration,” and “a leadership style that seeks to identify areas of collaboration.”

Three days after the feature was published, Dallman dispatched a letter to union members, calling on them in the name of “solidarity” to join a protest of the Douglas County school board before their September 4 meeting. The conflict between the CEA president’s “put kids front and center” rhetoric and the priorities promoted in that letter are clear enough.

It turns out the Dougco board meeting had to be moved back a day to accommodate a district tragedy. Instead of going south from Denver, Dallman turned north and headed to the Adams 12 school board meeting–along with nearly 400 fellow union sympathizers from at least seven different school districts.

The CEA was there to make the case that the District 12 board had broken the collective bargaining contract by adopting a budget (in June) that included increasing teacher pension contributions to match those made by other employee groups. The other option the board eschewed? Lay off instructors, required to be done by seniority. More teachers would have to be let go because the lower-paid ones would be let go first.

Walking into an atmosphere of sign-waving, T-shirts in black or emblazoned with Soviet imagery, and intense rhythmic clapping to express protest, two residents dared to respectfully offer a competing point of view in public testimony. As Adams 12 mom Sara Colburn spoke over murmurs and boos (“You need to realize that you are not the only people hurting right now,” she said), the vast majority of union protesters got up and walked out:

At about 2:45 into the video, you can see a black-shirted woman facing the departing crowd and holding a sign (which can’t be read because of the profile view), as if to direct their actions. That woman? You guessed it: CEA president Kerrie Dallman.

Most of the union protesters didn’t bother to stay around and hear the response. But Colburn, her husband, and the other resident who spoke on behalf of taxpayers? For their own safety, security officers had to escort the three of them to their vehicles. Colburn said: “The security officer told me he thought it probably would be a good idea if he took us to our cars. He said all those people that had cleared out were outside the front doors waiting for us.”

Collaboration? I don’t think that word means what the reporter thinks it means. Or maybe he realized, as many more now do, that there’s more to the reputation than meets the eye.

“We've got to put kids front and center,” she said. But how exactly does that include heading to another school district to join in a protest planned today in Castle Rock?

Three days after the Post puff piece was published (try saying that five times fast), a letter went out under the CEA president's name to the union rank and file:

As you may know, our Association’s values of collectivism, unity, solidarity, equity, transparency, and collaboration are being attacked throughout Colorado by school board members who are politically driven to diminish the role of unions. In the past few months, this has surfaced in Douglas County where teachers and classified employees are represented by the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT), a Colorado AFT local.

We believe it is only a matter of time that other school boards will begin to display the anti-union behavior of the Douglas County School Board.

Another 280 words or so later, in the last phrase of the letter, we finally read about “the students we teach.” Nothing like putting the children out there “front and center” to clear up any confusion about adult priorities — like fighting to continue automatic deductions for the union political machine and to keep unaccountable union officials on the tax-funded payroll.

In the spirit of transparency, which so many of us greatly esteem, it is instructive to see which values drive CEA leaders into action: collectivism, solidarity, and equity. Some of those who place greater value on individualism, merit and freedom also are planning to show up later today and support the Board's bold reform plans. Should make for some interesting video.

The protest idea did originate locally in Dougco, but CEA (which has never represented teachers there) found a compelling reason to join in. Whether the American Federation of Teachers was afraid of a repeat low turnout, or the National Education Association state affiliate might be looking for a new source to help make up for a significant 2-year loss in membership.

Or maybe teachers union leaders are genuinely frightened that other school boards might follow Dougco's lead. Think of all the poor children trapped in Colorado's 138 non-union school districts… What can be done for them? Must keep the students “front and center.”

Or is it, “Must send a shot across the bow of school boards in other major districts”? Yes, major. Who remembers the mass protest that took place in 2011 after the Park County Re-2 school board decertified the small local union, an actual CEA/NEA affiliate? That's right, there wasn't one.

While Dallman's letter cites September 4 as the date of the Dougco board meeting and planned protest, the meeting was moved to accommodate an unexpected tragic event. The board meeting is scheduled for 5:00 today, with the protest designated for a half-hour before.

Apparently, there is some plan among the pro-collectivist crowd to wear Halloween masks. How fitting. When it comes to the clash of rhetoric versus priorities, the trick is on students while union officials fight to keep the treat for themselves.

As the school board moved ahead with the groundbreaking Choice Scholarship Program in 2011, the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) — the local teachers union — carefully crafted a quiet public position. A January 13, 2011, letter to members from President Brenda Smith cautioned a wait-and-see approach as the details of the Choice Scholarship Program were being developed. Two months later, when the Board approved the program, Ed News Colorado reported a friendly, neutral tone from the DCFT leader:

“We applaud the district and teachers for working collaboratively … to ensure money will not leave a budget with scarce resources, holds all participating schools accountable and provides an equal opportunity for all our students,” teachers union President Brenda Smith said in a written statement. “We will continue to monitor its implementation.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a local group called Taxpayers for Public Education led the charge to file lawsuits against the Douglas County Board of Education and the State of Colorado, while the local Democratic Party also assumed a role speaking out in opposition. Responses from the union on the private school choice issue or the lawsuit? For more than a year, you could hear a lot of crickets chirping.

Last month, the AFT co-sponsored an amicus brief in the voucher appeal that stated the union's clear hostility to rescuing the program and the 500 students it had begun to serve from the district court's injunction. This filing of course took place in the wake of a public dispute over negotiations that deeply touched the roots of union power and privilege.

Until Monday, the apparent satisfying conclusion was that monitoring implementation of the Choice Scholarship Program had meant DCFT was detached and neutral concerning the program's success or failure. One even might have speculated that union leaders' seemingly newfound opposition to the pilot choice program stemmed from a reaction to their deteriorating relationship with the Board rather than from an earlier calculated effort.

Two newly discovered email messages, one of them reported on yesterday in a Townhall column by John Ransom, cast serious doubt on that theory. Even while DCFT leaders served unaccountably on the tax-funded district payroll and the district continued to collect AFT political dollars and other dues funds, the union was scheming with the ACLU to kill the Board's reform agenda.

The first email message was sent from senior political consultant George Merritt to three DCFT leaders, including Smith, on June 21, 2011, the date lawsuits first were filed against the Choice Scholarship Program:

I think it is very likely that we will be asked for a comment. I think this is another scenario where we need to keep our cards close to the vest and let the ACLU do what it does. So far, this is playing out exactly as you all planned, so congrats. While this is welcomed news, I think we want to stay the heck out of the way on this lawsuit. IF we are asked for comment by a reporter, we should keep it short and rather dull.

Merritt's specific suggestion of something “short and rather dull” were “our '3 things'” that read almost verbatim to the comment Smith provided to Ed News three months earlier. Townhall columnist Ransom makes a compelling observation when he writes:

It appears from the email that the union was coached by Merritt to execute a strategy that kept the union out of the limelight, while union officials on the public dole stage-managed efforts at destroying reform measures….

In other words, when it comes to the Choice Scholarship Program, DCFT was actually against it before they were against it. The second email shows a series of reactions to news that a local university was performing a privately-funded survey of parents who had received a Choice Scholarship (reported a few days later in the Denver Post).

Messages were exchanged on the evening of December 7, 2011, nearly four months after Judge Michael A. Martinez issued the injunction. Responding to DCFT vice-president Courtney Smith, who exclaimed in language your teenager will understand (“OMG!!!!!”), Merritt concisely advised:

Let's work on it first thing tomorrow. We'll get it to the ACLU and let them raise hell

Coordinated efforts? You make the call.

Like two important pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, these email messages provide a clearer picture of the timing and nature of the union's opposition to school choice reforms. Given this new information, it's fair to ask whether Governor Hickenlooper finds the case more compelling to make a risky intervention on a major campaign contributor's behalf.

Five weeks have passed since the initial request, with the union and board have exchanged responses to the labor department, the clock is still ticking. What is Hick going to do? Labor Department executive director Ellen Golombek's longstanding ties to the AFL-CIO — the DCFT's mother union — have been well established. But ultimately the decision rests with her boss, Governor John Hickenlooper.

One way or the other, he's very likely to act soon. In some Douglas County schools, new teacher orientation starts a week from today (August 1), with kids back in class by the following Monday. A majority of Dougco schools start a week later. Is there any reason to let the question hang over everyone's heads as the state's third-largest school district gets back to the business of education?  

During this year's historic open negotiations, union leaders conceded to many of the district's requests — commonsense requests that are not too common in K-12 education labor policy and agreements. By the time the intervention request was filed, DCFT had backtracked on a few issues and decided they would disagree after all. One has to imagine national union leaders didn't want to set a precedent that could impact their pocketbook in other places, too.

With the collective bargaining agreement no longer in effect, DCSD no longer underwrites unaccountable union officials with taxpayer funds. And DCSD no longer collects dues for the union political apparatus. The end of automatic government dues collection likely will cut into the organization's membership rolls and revenues.

Lest we forget, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) pours millions a year into liberal groups, while its Colorado political committee consistently spends 100% of teacher funds on Democratic candidates and causes.

One of those candidates? John Hickenlooper, who directly received the maximum $10,000 from AFT Colorado during his bid for governor.  No other candidate came close to receiving as much from the state's second largest teachers union. Given the sizable campaign donation, intervening on the organization's behalf to try to restore its monopoly power and dues-collecting privilege would create an apparent conflict of interest.

Intervention would signal a contrast with the ethical approach Governor Hickenlooper took two weeks ago in demanding all 10 of his public trustees resign due to “questionable spending practices.” His code of good government honor suggests the need in the Dougco case to set a higher standard and to avoid apparent conflicting interests.

Hick could attempt to rescue a political contributor in this situation, or he could let officials and educators work it out locally. Why protect the automatic conduit of funds into AFT's coffers when another independent voice could still emerge among teachers? Why risk a well-crafted reputation?

Stay tuned. This could be one of the Hickenlooper administration's first decisions of real political significance.

While a move on such scale appears to be without precedent, it stands as a legitimate and appropriate use of power. Colorado is one of 9 states where school boards retain the discretion concerning whether, and what sort of, labor relations to have. A full 137 of the state's 178 school districts live without an exclusive collective bargaining agreement. Douglas County would become the largest of the lot. As I noted in a 2011 Independence Institute brief, Tiny Park County Re-2 was the most recent to revoke an existing agreement:

A former teachers union president cast the deciding vote to cancel the exclusive representative status [the South Park Education Association] had enjoyed for nearly a decade.

For every full-time teacher once represented by SPEA, DCFT's bargaining power currently covers nearly 70. So in terms of scale, a change in Douglas County would be significant. And as Carroll notes, with the district's bold proposals to advance performance and market pay, as well as other innovative delivery models, they “will no doubt find the transition easier without a reactionary union habitually digging in its heels.”

In making classroom policy decisions, a wise school board still will heed the voices of its best instructors and those committed to promoting excellence within the profession (in addition to parents, who too often are overlooked). Further, as I have compiled in an unofficial list, Colorado law contains a substantial number of protections for teachers — whether they be union or non-union. And starting next month, Douglas County teachers may have more options for representation, in addition to membership. No matter what happens, teachers still will be (and should be) able to continue paying voluntary dues to DCFT.

While DCFT officials would not back down on demanding they retain their exclusive privileged power to represent teachers, they did indicate at last Friday's final scheduled open negotiation session that it would be okay to end the unethical practice of the school district collecting union dues. The Board has good reason to pursue the change, seeing as how government-collected union funds finance not only school board campaigns but also partisan state races (most Colorado AFT money comes from Douglas County) and a national political agenda that sometimes collides and conflicts with the Board's community-supported vision.

Interestingly, though, DCFT president Brenda Smith also publicly stated that the union reserves the right to sue the district over the dues collection issue. If the union is looking for a way to ensure the collective bargaining agreement lives on, threatening legal action (along with repeatedly disseminating misleading budget information) does not give the Board many good reasons to do so. One has to wonder what officials at the Colorado Education Association, which oversees the state's 40 other teacher bargaining units, think about this development: How many other school boards will get this same idea, and how can we persuade them not to?

Teachers in Dougco may demonstrate that, from most teachers' perspective, the union's heft through its exclusive bargaining status has been exaggerated. Back in May, during one of the more heated bargaining sessions, DCFT negotiators complained about continuing employment contracts the district sent out by email. Nearly 3,000 certified employees were each given 30 days to declare their intention to return or risk losing their job assignment. Thereafter DCFT officials have declared on several occasions that many educators were holding out to make certain a collective bargaining agreement would be ratified.

The deadline to return the contracts is Friday. As the Post's Karen Auge reports, 2,238 of 2,980 teachers (75 percent) had returned signed contracts as of yesterday. My own information request to Douglas County not only confirms these numbers but also indicates that

…at least 2 of the union's at least 2 of the teachers involved in the union negotiations have signed their contract (there were several of the union members, like Brenda Smith, that are not receiving a contract because they do not have an assignment for next year).

After all, the district no longer is paying for union officials to do union business with taxpayer money, another positive development out of this whole exchange.  

Anyway, a former teachers union president in Park County, two union negotiators in Dougco. In the end, the union's power and prestige — embodied in local collective bargaining power — may not prove a worthwhile cause for which to stick out one's neck. And Douglas County students will do just fine, or even all the better, for the change.

Seriously, folks? Clearly, union officials are uncomfortable talking about this issue and would love to make it go away quietly. While their hopes for widespread inattention may be dashed when it comes to this issue of teacher options, they maintain an advantage when it comes to incredible campaign finance reporting logic.

In a post last fall at Public Sector, Inc., I detailed the scheme. All CEA members make automatic contributions to the union's state campaign warchest and have at least one annual refund opportunity through the “Every Member Option” program. Teachers filing the request before December 15 receive $39 in return.

Since these funds are filtered invisibly from individual educator paychecks up through the local union office, the trail of how fungible dollars reach CEA's small donor committee is rather opaque. Under existing campaign finance law, individual contributions of $20 or more must be itemized in reports to the Secretary of State. Anything less is lumped into the “non-itemized” category. But how do you define an individual contribution from automatic payroll deductions of $3.25 (or less) apiece?

It's how we get the clever fiction that the small donor committee (known as Public Education Committee) reports exactly $250,000.00 in “non-itemized” contributions on its most recent report. More than 99 percent of the committee's revenues have been “non-itemized.” Not that this is a new development by any stretch, given some of their previously reported “non-itemized” contribution hauls:

• October 13, 2010: $220,000.00
• April 25, 2010: $350,000.00
• July 16, 2008: $250,000.00
• July 2, 2008: $480,000.00
• April 25, 2008: $150,000.00
• July 12, 2006: $78,000.00

“It's amazing how we end up with so many perfectly round numbers in our non-itemized contributions. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Non-itemized. Know what I mean?” … “I beg your pardon!” … “All those non-itemized contributions we deducted.” … “What are you saying, man? Come on out with it!” … “It's a lot of cash. To fund campaigns, political campaigns.”

In one sense, yes. Nearly $600,000 now sits in the Public Education Committee account, which represents about half the cash on hand for 17 registered teachers union political committees. Compiled info on the last few election cycles give a strong hint where teachers union committees probably will direct these dollars. On the most recent report, the Public Education Committee's only expenditure was $5,000 to their sister Wisconsin affiliate for “coalition work.” I wonder what that's about.

In the end, no one disputes the rights of private organizations like the teachers union to raise and spend money on political speech under the same rules as everyone else. But it's only reasonable to ask whether the current system might contain a loophole or two.

What other groups get the benefit of government systems to provide regular collections for their political activities? What other groups can report exactly $250,000.00 in “non-itemized” contributions with a straight face? But perhaps the biggest question that remains: Do we just have to live with it? Or can something be done any time soon to put the election process on a level playing field?

But just within the past few days Coloradans have been reminded why having the sunshine is so important. Witness the latest investigative report from 7News' John Ferrugia and Arthur Kane:

In a time of tight budgets, teacher layoffs and increased fees, school districts are still spending money on expensive meals, teacher parties and even gift cards, a CALL7 “You Paid For It” investigation found.

CALL7 Investigators reviewed check registers and credit card databases for the major metro school districts and found thousands of dollars spent on a public relations consultant, gift cards, staff parties and meals at top restaurants. While the totals would never fix the districts' budget deficits, the spending shows that administrators are not cutting potentially wasteful at the time many schools are cutting education resources.

Typical of the genre, the story features a couple “Aha” moments in which local school district administrators have a hard time trying to justify some questionable expenditures. Metro area voters who may have to decide a number of local school tax initiatives this fall might be none the wiser if not for such investigative work.

It's important then to remember that a 2010 law requiring significant online financial transparency from Colorado school districts really made this story possible. A local news agency conceivably could have used the Colorado Open Records Act to uncover some or all of the information featured in the report. However, it would be difficult to generate the “probable cause” needed to spend even more resources and man-hours on an investigation.

The Independence Institute was at the forefront of the call for school spending transparency in 2009 and in 2010. More recently, my former intern Devan Crean and I were able to shine the spotlight on how well (or how poorly) local K-12 agencies were complying with Colorado's Public School Financial Transparency Act. In the immediate aftermath of that report, we heard from several school districts eager to fix their shortcomings.

Let's be clear. The results of neither the 7News investigation nor our 2011 issue paper necessarily indicate some sort of concerted effort among local education agencies to hide their financial activities. Jeffco Public Schools, a district featured in the article for a concerning apparent conflict of interest, actually posted a searchable spending database before the 2010 law was adopted. While transparency may sometimes prevent problems from occurring, in large bureaucracies it often may only help to show the problem is there.

On the other hand, my colleague Amy Oliver has found evidence that indicates why some higher education officials have lobbied this year against transparency legislation. Nine days remain until the end of the legislative session, and HB 1252 finally is scheduled to be heard tomorrow by House Appropriations. The likelihood of both passing the House and speeding through the Senate at this point seems like a daunting challenge.

The fight to preserve and expand government sunshine is ongoing. In spite of setbacks, we need to keep urging Colorado's education transparency train forward to make some more progress. And soon. If you can't defend it, don't spend it!

Tonight the Douglas County Board of Education is slated to hold a formal vote on an open negotiations resolution. The momentous question is less whether transparency will be embraced but what the proposed parameters of open negotiations will look like. We will find out just how serious DCF is by the terms of any proposal they make to the Board and/or how they respond to the Board's parameters.

Will they call for something unreasonable and unrealistic, like also opening negotiating strategy sessions of district officials, but not union officials? It's the give-and-take of deciding school personnel policies and how taxpayer dollars will be used that merits public scrutiny, not how the individual sides formulate their strategies.

What the two sides are serious about are some key terms of the collective bargaining agreement, including the contentious issue of taxpayer-funded union release time. As Ed News Colorado reported:

Altogether, the district has paid an estimated $1.5 million in union salaries over the past five years, according to chief finance officer Bonnie Betz. Betz and Smith said that pay has been negotiated annually….

Douglas County Superintendent Liz Fagen has decreased the amount paid to the teachers union and suspended it altogether in December, she said Tuesday, saying she needed to show taxpayers they were receiving something for the money. Smith said the agreement is in the contract and lawyers are working on it.

Since some of the taxpayer-funded union leave is embedded in the contract, how the issue has been handled is pertinent to the tenor of the negotiation process moving forward. In a post I wrote last month for Publc Sector, Inc., I erred in assuming that the Board just “put a stop” to the practice. But a review of documents requested from the Douglas County School District shows there's more to the story.

Late last year district leaders proposed greater accountability from union employees for the portion of their time funded by district tax dollars. Superintendent Fagen sought agreement from DCF President Brenda Smith to ensure “the district-paid portion of the [union] FTE” would work in-house with the district and be evaluated for the use of that time. In a December 6, 2011, letter to Smith, Fagen affirmed from their conversation that DCF “would rather pay 100% than have [their] folks transparently working together with district folks 50% of their time.”

That interaction suggests a less-than-enthusiastic attitude about transparency. Union officials doubtless had their reasons, whatever they may be, for preferring to give up public dollars rather than subject themselves to some basic measures of public accountability. Inquiring minds then want to know: What other perks or benefits would union negotiators be compelled to concede under the bright lights of public attention?

Maybe DCF leaders, with pressure from rank-and-file members, have experienced a genuine change of heart. The proof will be in the pudding. The pudding is the details concerning the nature and conduct of open negotiations: What will the union propose? What will they accept?