Taxpayers deserve transparency, not government secrecy
Stock photo | Pixabay
N.C. Senate Bill 355 would open more contents of public-sector employees' personnel files to public disclosure.
Senate Bill 355, legislation that promotes and enhances public access to the performance records of public employees, is generating significant resistance from various state organizations that have several things in common — they are all union-related and they are determined to continue operating without public scrutiny.
The Government Transparency Act of 2021, championed by Sen. Norman Sanderson, R-Pamlico, has generated a major letter-writing and phone campaign to state senators demanding that they vote against the act when it’s brought to the floor.
This aggressive opposition raises several questions. What is there to hide? And, why should the employers, N.C. taxpayers, be denied access to the performance records of their employees?
Opposition to the bill became apparent when it was first presented to the senate’s Judiciary Committee in late April. Sanderson, committee co-chair along with Sen. Danny Britt, R-Robeson, made the presentation at that meeting since he is a co-sponsor of the bill. During his report, he had to aggressively defend the bill as several Republican senators presented challenges on behalf of several state organizations that operate as quasi-unions.
That opposition ratcheted up May 4 during a second hearing before the Judiciary Committee and then again May 6 during a Senate Rules Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, also a cosponsor of the bill. The effort has now turned into an onslaught of calls to legislators demanding a “no” vote.
In the Judiciary Committee meeting, state’s two largest employee unions, the State Employees Association of North Carolina and the North Carolina Association of Educators were joined by the Teamsters Union, Local 391, and the N.C. Justice Center declaring that the bill is unconstitutional.
While both SEANC and NCAE are chapters of national unions, the legislature does not contract with official union organization, so these two organizations avoid that description in all their formal documents. It is, however, worth noting that they were joined in their complaint by one of the largest unions in the country — the Teamsters.
A letter signed jointly by Ardis Watkins of SEANC, Tamika Walker Kelly representing NCAE, Michael McGaha, president of Teamsters Local 391, and Rick Glazer of the N.C. Justice Center applauds the efforts “at transparency and openness” but then argues that the bill will “embroil the state in lawsuits” on the supposition that it will result in public employees being “subject to gossip and innuendo and difficulties finding future employment.”
On the contrary, access to state employee professional performance records will assure that accurate information is always available, thereby diminishing gossip and innuendo, which is usually the result of cloistered information.
In yet another letter being mailed to state senators, the NCAE complains that SB 355 “expands public access to personnel records of public employees to an inappropriate level far beyond what is expected in any other state.” This, too, is inaccurate considering that 36 other states have codified access to employee records and in many cases require full disclosure of all reports and documentation.
The bill does not interfere with existing statutes or agency procedures establishing procedures for employees seeking due process in cases of contested dismissal or other corrective actions. Language has been added in the bill prohibiting disclosure of personal medical information, and the bill safeguards employee privacy rights through procedures that are well-known to public sector lawyers. All of which answer the complaints of the opposing organizations and in fact strengthens the protections they contend are important.
The joint letter signed by SEANC, NCAE, the Justice Center and the Teamsters admonishes the Senate, noting, “The state — and you as its elected leadership — must remember that you are the employer here….As the employer, the state has an obligation to protect the constitutional rights of the people affected by this bill.”
There is no question constitutional rights should be protected. And those rights belong to the very people who are responsible, and they are, as this letter correctly notes, the residents of the state for whom these employees work.
As John Bussian, a Raleigh-based media lawyer representing the North Carolina Press Association, has stated in defending the legislation, “a general description of the reasons for demotions, suspensions and termination have been kept secret from the public for too long.” He is correct.
We, the state, have a responsibility to assure our services are being provided professionally and appropriately, which we cannot do that without full transparency. SB 355 will go a long way to assure that we begin to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.
Of pockets, legs and polarization
“For the people who actually study the origins of civil wars, not just in the U.S., but as a class o...
5 key facts on the inflation blame game
The subject of inflation has been on many tongues in the public policy world of late — especially as...
Temps will be cold, but snow forecast remains hazy
The temperature forecast for our area this week appears set — cold Tuesday, a brief warm up Wednesda...
Chamber kicks off membership drive
SPRING HOPE — Local business boosters are looking for new partners. The Spring Hope Area Chamber of ...
Mayor names advisors and committee members
SPRING HOPE — Mayor Kyle Pritchard has introduced his board of advisors and their committee members ...
Knightdale man sentenced on gun conviction
A Knightdale resident will spend three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to a gun charge...