The Post-Star, by Mark Mahoney

By Mark Mahoney

Even if, as Mr. Hill says, the Town Board has no intention of enforcing the clause through legal means, it's still in there and it's still intimidating.

Governments are always on the lookout for new and nefarious ways to keep the public in the dark about what they're doing.

The latest tactic is one known as "confidentiality agreements," in which parties involved in a settlement with the government agree not to speak to anyone, including the press, about the terms.

The Queensbury Town Board did it last week when such a clause was included as part of a settlement with citizens who'd challenged their property tax assessments. As part of a secret settlement, the property owners agree "not to seek any form of press coverage (newspaper, radio, TV, internet or other) for the settlement and agree not to respond to any press inquiries about the proposed settlement terms."

A similar clause was included in the Cambridge school board's settlement agreement with its outgoing superintendent. When the public demanded to know why the school board paid her $80,000 to suspend her contract, the board was able to hide behind the confidentiality clause in the contract in issuing their "no comments."

And these are just two recent examples. There are many others.

Such confidentiality agreements, or "non-disclosure" agreements, have their place in business to protect proprietary interests and in the judicial system to ensure the fair administration of justice. But when you're dealing with governments and taxpayer money, there is rarely such justification for secrecy. Taxpayers have a right to know the kinds of deals their government officials are making, especially when the deals involve their money or their right to redress their government. In addition, these confidentiality agreements can be used by government as an intimidation tactic. No citizen should be coerced or threatened into giving up their constitutional right to freedom of speech in order to get the relief from the government they deserve.

In the Cambridge case, citizens rightly wanted to know why they were paying $80,000 to end a contract that both the district and the superintendent said was a mutual parting of ways.

And the Queensbury case opens up a whole raft of public access possibilities because it involves both taxpayer money and a grievance procedure.

Councilman John Strough, who voted against the resolution authorizing the settlement, gives a little insight into why the rest of the Town Board doesn't want the settlement made public. By keeping the settlements secret, the town is able to avoid revealing its justification for the agreement.

Assessment challenges are supposed to be an open process predicated on the actual values of comparable neighboring properties and the property values in the community. But Mr. Strough rightly points out that if the public gets wind of the details of the secret settlements, it not only opens the door to more citizens to challenge their assessments, but also exposes the town to charges of awarding unfair settlements and challenges to the validity of the revaluation itself.

Government officials might argue that secrecy during negotiations is vital to protect the interests of both sides. And in fact, attorney Mike Hill, representing the town of Queensbury, said the confidentiality clause was really designed for that purpose in this case. But once the terms of the settlement have been reached and there's no longer a danger of any side learning about the negotiating tactics or positions of the other, then the lock on the door should come off.

Even if, as Mr. Hill says, the Town Board has no intention of enforcing the clause through legal means, it's still in there and it's still intimidating.

One of the best and most efficient ways for the public to get this information is through the media. But because the participants have agreed not to talk to the media under the implied threat that they'll lose their assessment reduction, the public won't get to hear the facts.

The public has every right to know what deals their neighbors are getting in property assessment negotiations and what criteria were used to determine those assessments. And they have a right to know exactly how much this is costing them.

And if that means that every one of Queensbury's property owners reads this and marches down to Town Hall and demands their own deal, then so be it. That's the chance the board takes by offering secret deals to a select group of property owners.

The public has a right to know what their governments are doing, and the citizens have a right to speak.

Responsible public officials should do nothing to interfere with either.

By Mark Mahoney

Melissa Thomas, Laura Danna, Brian Lace, Linda Baker-Marcella, John MicGlire, Dean Moore, Richelene Morey, Alan Smith.

These are the names of the eight rank-and-file members of the Warrensburg Board of Education.

But if you run into one of them on the street and have a question about any school related issues, don't bother asking it. Their lips are sealed. If you're looking in the paper to find out these board members' positions on pressing matters like potential budget cuts or teacher contracts or property taxes, you'll be wasting your time. Reporters can ask them questions, but they won't be answering.

In what amounts to an assault on both the First Amendment and the democratic process, the Warrensburg school board has established a gag order in which only the school board president, Tom Yarmowich, is allowed to speak to the press or the public on school-related issues outside of meetings. The only time board members can comment outside of a meeting is if they first get permission from the rest of the board.But if you run into one of them on the street and have a question about any school related issues, don't bother asking it. Their lips are sealed. If you're looking in the paper to find out these board members' positions on pressing matters like potential budget cuts or teacher contracts or property taxes, you'll be wasting your time. Reporters can ask them questions, but they won't be answering.

That means if you're a taxpayer and you walk up to a Warrensburg school board member and say, "What are you doing to cut my taxes?" or, "Why doesn't the school offer more advanced placement classes for seniors?" or, "Do you support reopening the teachers' contract?" or, "Why did you fire that coach?," the answer is going to be a curt, "I'm not allowed to comment; you'll have to talk to the school board president."

If you're a board member who's against the direction the majority of the board is taking on contracts or programs, you are not allowed, under this rule, to express that viewpoint outside of a meeting. And you probably ought to keep your mouth shut during the meeting as well.

On Monday night, the board's vice president reiterated the year-old rule for board members and the public. So what exactly precipitated this not-so-friendly reminder? Perhaps it was the fact that some members of the school board and the teachers union are upset with comments made last week by two board members regarding cuts to the school budget. Recently, the head of the school board's budget committee, Ms. Baker-Marcella, suggested the board must cut 10 percent of its budget in order to spare taxpayers the brunt of the governor's projected state aid cuts. Another board member, Ms. Morey, said that to save money, the board should consider asking teachers to reopen negotiations on 2005's four-year contract extension.

Whenever board members shoot off their mouths like this, they tend to attract unwelcome media coverage and stir up the rowdies who disrupt meetings complaining about their tax bills. So the best way to avoid that situation, according to the Warrensburg school board, is to take away the board members' right to speak.

To the eight of you on the list at the top of this editorial: Is this why you ran for the school board -- to allow others to neuter your opinions in the name of faux unity? When you ran for office, did you really intend to agree to have your opinion subverted in order to placate the community's most outspoken citizens? Do you really think you're serving the people who voted for you by saying "no comment" every time a constituent asks you a legitimate question?

School board members are elected government officials who establish the local policy for the education of our children. They also administer the largest portion of your property tax bill, more than 60 percent. Any board that attempts to silence its members is not only silencing the segment of the population that agrees with them, but also the individuals who might have risen to debate them.

Not only does this rule run counter to the First Amendment, it's not even practical. The rule covers all meetings of the school board, even committee meetings. But if the president doesn't happen to attend any of those meetings, how can he comment on what went on? Shouldn't the public be able to hear from the actual participants?

Secondly, there is no law anywhere prohibiting school board members from commenting on all but the most sensitive personal matters involving staff or students. Contrary to what they might tell you, public officials are free to comment on what goes on in contract negotiations, during closed-door executive sessions, in sidebar conversations and in e-mail exchanges. Boards might try to silence free speech, but the law simply doesn't exist to support them.

And finally, what happens to a school board member who breaks the rule? They're elected. The board can't kick them off, and it can't legitimately take any action against them. Board members don't leave their First Amendment rights at the school board's door. So this rule is completely unenforceable.

Healthy debate is not only good for democracy; it's essential.

Any school board that gags its own members is doing a disservice to itself, the voters, the taxpayers, and ultimately, to the cause of education in the community.

By Mark Mahoney

Imagine if the board of directors of a corporation was banned from observing his or her own company's assembly line.

Of if the owner of a pro sports team was locked out of the locker room..

Or on a local level, if the county Board of Supervisors wasn't allowed to inspect the Hudson Falls trash plant, or if the Glens Falls Common Council was prohibited from going behind the scenes at the Civic Center.

Ridiculous, right?

If people are going to make informed decisions about the organizations they administer, then it's important that they have complete access to all parts of the operation, including the ability to observe workers firsthand as they're performing their jobs.

An organization should be an open book to the people who directly control the money and make personnel and program decisions.

Yet that basic principle of direct oversight apparently doesn't apply to our educational system.

In the Warrensburg school district, and apparently in school districts across the state, the elected members of the school board are either banned from going into classrooms and observing the educational process in action, or they have to get specific permission from the employees' union to do so.

School boards are responsible not only for decisions affecting the education of our children, but they also administer multimillion-dollar budgets that make up the largest portion of our local property tax bills.

Yet, if they want to see for themselves exactly how that money is being spent, the very districts they oversee throw up roadblocks.

School board members, as elected representatives, are the eyes and ears of the general public into the school system.

They should be granted the ultimate back-stage pass -- carte blanche to any aspect of the school operation they wish, any time they wish -- from observing teachers while they're teaching to counting the boxes of tissues in the storage room.

They shouldn't need a reason. And they shouldn't need permission from anybody.

What's the downside? That teachers might be a little nervous being observed?

One or two people standing in the back of a classroom shouldn't unnerve any competent teacher.

And anyway, in Warrensburg, three teachers actually invited the school board member to observe them. It was the teachers union that raised a fuss. Why is that?

It practically takes an act of God to remove a poorly performing teacher from the classroom.

And principals and superintendents regularly observe teachers in the classroom as part of their daily oversight function.

Why should the elected officials who are setting the policies and paying the bills have to get special permission to do the same thing?

Could one of those anti-tax advocates on the school board, during one of these visits, get some ammunition to propose cuts or eliminate wasteful spending? Maybe. But is that a bad thing for taxpayers to have someone raising such issues?

And school board members aren't the only ones who have a stake in the operation of schools. So do parents..

You certainly don't want groups of adults crowding into classrooms every day, for practical and security reasons.

But if the occasional parent wants to see what goes on in his or her child's classroom, why shouldn't that be encouraged?

And if a large number of citizens or board members want to see, for instance, what they're doing in gym class these days, then schools can either designate a place where they can all watch, or set up video cameras so visitors can observe the operation later.

School districts should not only allow board of education members full access to the schools, they should invite and encourage such visits.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, in support of open and accessible government, said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

If shining light on our schools will help bring about a better education for our children, then no one should have any reason to object.

By Mark Mahoney

Imagine you're driving past your kid's school and you notice some construction you hadn't seen before.

Dump trucks and construction cranes and burly guys wearing helmets, and traffic cones and red steel beams lying on the lawn, the whole works.

Out front, a big sign with a painting of a building on it says, "Site of our new $6 million administrative center."

You pull over and ask what's going on, and the construction manager says, "Didn't ya hear? The school board approved it last month."

If you're a taxpayer in that district, and the school board went ahead and approved a multi-million-dollar project in secret without providing you with any details until the construction was already under way, you'd go out of your mind. And you'd be justified.

But that's exactly what school districts do to taxpayers when they approve contracts behind closed doors without providing any justification, any breakdown of the cost impact or any opportunity for the public to comment until after the final decision has been made. Since personnel costs are by far the largest portion of any school budget, making up about 70 to 80 percent of an entire school budget, the expense to taxpayers can easily be millions of dollars a year.

It was June when the Fort Edward school district and its teachers union agreed on a new contract. It was July when the board and the union ratified the deal without having released details to the public. And even though The Post-Star filed Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests for a copy of the contract months ago, we have yet to receive it, five full months after the board approved it. That's a flagrant violation of the Freedom of Information Law and a slap in the face to their taxpaying public.

Unfortunately for taxpayers all around the area and state, this is not an unusual situation. Millions of dollars of tax money is being spent in secret all over the state without any opportunity for citizens to influence the decision.

The Empire Center for New York State Policy, an Albany-based public advocacy organization, issued a report earlier this week citing numerous examples around the state, including the Fort Edward case, of taxpayer abuse in the name of contract secrecy. While school districts are often guilty of the practice, it's not limited to them. (See box.)

The state Open Meetings Law does allow boards and unions to negotiate terms of their deals in secret, the justification being that they don't want to reveal each other's negotiating positions. That's a legitimate justification for secrecy and one that the public and the media readily accept.

The problem comes when they still keep the contract secret after both sides are done negotiating and there is no longer that justification for secrecy. At that point, the only reason for a board to keep the information secret is to avoid backlash from the citizens who have to pay the tab. And fear of public retribution is not a legal justification for defying the Opening Meetings Law under any circumstances.

If the public rebels against a contract and the two sides are forced to go back and renegotiate, so be it. That's the price they pay for being on the public's payroll.

Fort Edward officials say they honored the public's right to know by releasing a list of the changes they made to the old contract. But that would be like sending the IRS a shoebox full of receipts and claiming you filed your taxes. Sure, all the information might be there. But the IRS shouldn't have to sort it all out for you (and they won't). Same thing with taxpayers. Give them a document, not some shoebox full of changes that they have to then cut and paste into the old contract in order to make sense of it.

As a result of the many flagrant violations of the public's right to know, the Empire Center is pushing for changes to the Open Meetings Law that would require government bodies, including school districts, to release tentative contract agreements prior to ratification.

But the center goes even further, seeking a breakdown of the long-term cost of any contract, a breakdown of savings attributed to union "givebacks" and a list of proposed salary increases on an annualized and cumulative percentage basis.

Employment contracts are the biggest line item in any government budget. Taxpayers have a right to see them before their government boards approve them.

We fully support any amendments to the Open Meetings Law that will make our government more transparent and more accessible to the people.

WHERE IT HAS HAPPENED

Examples around the state of taxpayers being shut out of costly contract talks.

Village of Johnson City: Only after the village board approved anew contract with the firefighters’ union, by a 3-2 margin last May 20, village residents discovered it would raise the firefighters’ already generous salaries by more than 33 percent over five years. On June 17, village officials disclosed they had erred when calculating the raises. The five-year increase will actually come to just over 41 percent.

Utica City School District: On the first day of the 2008-09 school year, 845 teachers were handed copies of a tentative four-year union contract, which they ratified Sept. 15. The superintendent of schools refused to publicly disclose contract terms until after the Board of Education approved the deal, eight days later. The first-year raise for many teachers came to 4.64 percent. Even more significant, the contract guarantees lifetime health insurance for all teachers who retire after 10 years on the job.

Pine Bush Central School District: After threatening an illegal strike, the teachers’ union agreed to a new contract in late May, but neither side would release details until the school board’s ratification vote on June 10. It turned out the reported three-year deal would raise base salaries by 11.4 percent, on top of longevity step raises that average 2.2 percent a year.

State of New York. In August, Governor David Paterson announced the state had reached a tentative contract with the state Police Benevolent Association. The agreement calls for 14 percent in base pay hikes over four years. The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations refused to release a full copy of the tentative contract on the ground that it could “impair” ongoing negotiations with a separate union representing State Police investigators.

Rondout Valley: School officials required a FOIL request before releasing details of a newly ratified teachers’ contract raising pay 22 percent over five years.

Westchester County: The county and the 4,000-member Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) Unit 9200 announced a tentative agreement Sept. 16, which the union celebrated with a public rally that day. A local newspaper had to file two FOIL requests before obtaining a copy of the new memorandum of agreement from the county on Oct. 8 — six days after ballots were mailed to union members. The document showed the pending contract called for salary increases of 22 percent over a six-year period.

Oswego City School District: In November 2007, three of seven school board members voted against a five-year teachers’ contract providing 22.7 percent raises because they hadn’t received adequate answers to their questions. “It was voted on by the union before we even saw it,” complained a former board president. An attempt to table the vote was rejected.

Source: Empire Center for Public Policy. For the text of the full report, visit www.empirecenter.org/files/.

By Mark Mahoney

Like a clandestine affair at a sleazy roadside motel, representatives from the state comptroller's office and the Whitehall Town Board huddled in secret behind locked doors Monday while the jilted public waited outside wondering what the hell was going on in there.

After the two collaborators slipped a "Private Meeting" sign on the door and locked themselves in, they discussed the status of a "draft" audit of town books that apparently involved the misappropriation of taxpayer money.

According to the head of the state Committee on Open Government, Robert Freeman, that meeting should have been open to the public. He's got state law, legal precedent, and a decision from the state's highest court to back up his stance. He's made his case to past state comptrollers and the current comptroller stating that so-called "exit conferences" on audits between the comptroller and local governments are indeed public meetings.

But the comptroller's office not only thumbs its nose at the Open Meetings Law, it blackmails local government boards into going along. According to Mr. Freeman, the comptroller's office tells the local government that it will only meet to discuss the audit if the meeting is held in private. For what reason they insist on a private meeting is beyond us. The final report of the audit will eventually be made public anyway. And as Mr. Freeman points out, it's usually the local government that would take the brunt of public criticism from anything that might be revealed at the meeting. But for whatever reason, that's the comptroller's policy and they're sticking to it.

Now here's where the blackmail comes in. If the government board is inclined to hold the meeting in public as per the law, then the comptroller's office simply informs the board that it won't be attending the meeting. That puts the local government board between a rock and a hard place. It's to their constituents' benefit that the board avail itself to the expertise and advice of the comptroller's office. But in order to get that expertise and advice, the board has to close the meeting to the public.

Pragmatism will tell you which direction most boards lean. Put in that position, they usually opt to meet with the comptroller's office and close the meeting. That's pretty much what the Whitehall Town Board did on Monday -- closed the meeting despite the fact that a Post-Star reporter provided a direct statement from Mr. Freeman that what they were doing was illegal.

Whitehall officials tried to justify the closure by saying they were discussing "possible litigation" and "personnel" -- both of which are common excuses that governments fall back on when they want to close a meeting. The problem is that neither phrase exists in the Open Meetings Law and neither can be used as a reason to close a meeting.

It's true, they were talking about a specific individual -- the clerk involved in the allegations of malfeasance. But the clerk doesn't work for the town anymore, so they're not even discussing a town employee. And they're not protecting anyone's identity by meeting in private, since the clerk's name and the allegations against her have been well publicized.

The comptroller's office tried to say they were only discussing a "draft" of the audit, and therefore the meeting could be closed. But in the eye of the Open Meetings Law, drafts are no different than final documents, and the state Appellate Court has held that the "entire decision-making process" of a government body is subject to public scrutiny.

Two things need to change.

First: The state comptroller's office must stop insisting that public information such as audits be discussed behind closed doors. (The comptroller's office phone number and e-mail address are in the accompanying box. Send him a short note and include a copy of this editorial. And while you're at it, cc: Senator Betty Little and Assembly members Teresa Sayward and Roy McDonald.)

Second: Local government boards should stop kowtowing to the state when it comes closing meetings they know should be open. The local boards are the first and last line of defense in the protection of the public's rights. They should stand up for their citizens. The people have a right to know about the affairs of government. And if government hangs a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door, then the people need to keep knocking until they open up.

Contact Our Officials

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
Phone: 474-4044
E-mail:[email protected]

Whitehall Town Supervisor Vernon Scribner
Town office: 499-1535

State Sen. Elizabeth Little
Glens Falls Office: 743-0968
E-mail:[email protected]

Assemblyman Roy McDonald
Fort Edward office: 747-7098
E-mail:[email protected]

Assemblywoman Teresa Sayword
Glens Falls office: 792-4546
E-mail:[email protected]

By Mark Mahoney

This is the kind of stuff that gives school boards and teachers unions a bad reputation with their taxpayers.

The Fort Edward school board and teachers association have reached a memorandum of agreement on a new contract. Once the entire 61-member teachers association votes for it sometime early next week, the school board will approve it at a special meeting that same day.

Salaries and benefits make up 70 to 80 percent of each school budget, and school taxes make up about 65 percent of local residents' total property tax bills. Statewide over the last five years, school taxes have risen an average of 7 percent a year. So the impact of contracts on what citizens pay in taxes is significant.

What sticks in the public's craw time and time again is that despite the financial impact of these contracts, neither side involved in talks will release details of a deal until it's signed. That means the citizens get no say in the terms negotiated, and that the board and the teachers have signed a contract without knowing if those terms were acceptable to the people they serve.

We understand and appreciate the need to negotiate contracts in secret. And we've actually supported school boards and unions doing that. But when the negotiations have ended and the terms of the deal have been disclosed to both sides, the public should be invited in to offer their comments and suggestions.

Once the negotitions have ended, the need for keeping the terms secret from the public also ends. But school boards, and the teachers unions, like to push these deals through in secret so the public can't come to the meeting and throw a wrench into their nice, neat plans. It's unfair to the people paying the bills.

If the Fort Edward teachers association votes on the contract, and then the school board votes to approve it later the same day, that leaves virtually no time for the public to even be made aware of the meeting, much less be able to evaluate the contract and plan to attend the meeting to comment.

Teachers have been functioning under the terms of the old contract for a year; they can wait another week or so until the public has had a chance to weigh in on the new one.

In the spirit of public disclosure, the Fort Edward school board and teachers association should release terms of the new contract before the board votes on the final deal. Then the board should schedule a special meeting, with adequate advance public notice, to give the taxpayers time to digest the contract terms and convey their own opinions to the school board.

With so much tax money riding on this contract, it's only right that the taxpayers should have time to comment on it before it's too late to do anything about it.

By Mark Mahoney

"Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy."
-- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, 1967

Here's a guideline for public officials to follow about whether a meeting should be open to the public.

If you're conducting the public's business, it should.

What happens in county budget workshops is the public's business. And despite Washington County Budget Officer Gayle Hall's discovery of a loophole in the state Open Meetings Law, these meetings should be held in the open.

Supervisor Hall -- who has a history of flouting the Open Meetings Law in the aftermath of the Hadlock Pond dam collapse -- has stumbled upon a practice known as "walking forums." And she's taking full advantage of it to shut Washington County citizens out of the budget process.

In "walking forums," public officials get around the Open Meetings Law by splitting up their committees into small groups in order to conduct business. Since none of these little groups constitute a quorum of the full committee or board, these meetings can legally be held without notifying the public and without opening the meetings to the citizens.

In March, the attorney general of the state of Illinois, where the practice had become commonplace, sent out a strongly worded letter reminding government boards of their obligation to follow not only the letter, but the spirit, of the Open Meetings Law.

Yet Supervisor Hall has decided to apply the concept of walking forums to county budget workshops and any other meeting in which the budget is discussed -- including health, human resources, government operations, public works and public safety.

Meetings are deliberately scheduled and supervisors specifically assigned to assure that no quorum is reached, and therefore that the discussions can legally be held in secret. On Thursday, seven of 11 members of the county Finance Committee supported this tactic. (See their names and contact information in separate box.)

If you're a citizen in Washington County, particularly one who's read their tax bills the last few years, you should be outraged that your county representatives would attempt to build the new budget in secret.

Ms. Hall tried lamely to justify the practice by saying that the workshop meetings should be kept closed so she could discuss hiring and personnel issues in various county departments without public scrutiny. But that's not how the law works.. The law is not designed to make it easier or more convenient for elected officials to conduct the public's business. And it's not designed to protect public employees from unpleasant discussions about their fate.

The supervisor has no right to keep that information from the public, even if it means the employees affected could find out and be upset. Discussion of individual personnel records is already protected from public scrutiny under the Open Meetings Law. But discussion about the creation or elimination of the job titles held by those employees is not.

Walking forums represent a cynical manipulation the Open Meetings Law, and legal or not, they violate the spirit of government of the people and by the people.

We urge the full Board of Supervisors to reject this practice and to restate its support for open and honest government.

CLOSURE SUPPORTERS

Members of the Washington County Finance Committee who supported keeping budget workshops closed to the public (along with contact information for each):

Steve Alexender, Salem (854-3227)
Robert Banks, Dresden (499-2029)
Gayle Hall, Fort Ann (762-4040)
Nancy Hall, Hartford (632-5605)
Robert Henke, Argyle (638-8681 ext, 12)
John LaPointe, Putnam (547-8317
Vernon Scribner, Whitehall (499-1535)

Members of the county Finance Committee who supported holding budget workshops in the open:

Alan Brown, Jackson (692-2066)
Leon Clark, Hampton (282-0031)
Rodger Harley, Granville, (642-1500)
Donald Wilbur, Greenwich (692-7137)

By Mark Mahoney

"It's a significant bump, there's no question."

Queensbury town Supervisor Dan Stec said about the contract.

No kidding.

"I'm not tickled by it," he added.

The taxpayers sure won't be either.

Sometime today, Warren County supervisors will likely defy reason and common sense when they vote to approve a new contract for the Police Benevolent Association. While the state is threatening to cut back on funding for local governments and school districts, while the Wall Street collapse is killing the state's economy and tax base, and while ordinary taxpayers are struggling every day just to make their mortgages and bills, Warren County supervisors are about to hand the police union an early Christmas present.

How on earth, in this economic climate, can any responsible government official justify giving any taxpayer-paid employee a contract that includes a 7 percent pay raise in the first year, then 3.5 percent annually on top of that for the next three years?

Supervisors are meeting at 10 a.m. today to vote on this pact. If you want them to act, call them now, while you're still upset by this. While you're still a little grumpy. By the time you get home from work tonight, supervisors will have already rubber-stamped this turkey, just in time for Thanksgiving. If you want to stop them, there's no time like the present.

This is not the time for government officials to be generous with any employee, even those who might deserve it and who may have been unfairly underpaid for the last few years. Businesses aren't being generous.

Workers in the private sector are either losing their jobs or are seeing their pay and benefits stagnate or decline.

Yet they're the ones who have to pay the price when government officials hand out these kinds of contracts.

Go ahead. Raise your hand if the company you work for has guaranteed that your pay will increase at least 18 percent over the next four years. Anyone? OK. Now raise your hand if you got a 7 percent raise, retroactive to the beginning of this year. No? Raise your hand if you plan to expect a 3.5 percent raise each of the next three years. Hmmm. We're beginning to sense a pattern.

What makes this even more galling is that the deal will be approved without the public having all the details prior to the vote. Warren County's leaders apparently don't believe the public should be told the details of a contract until after it's a done deal. If this contract is so fair for county taxpayers, as some contend, then what do supervisors have to fear from a full public airing of the terms prior to the vote?

Once contract negotiations have been completed, as they are in this case since the PBA has already voted to approve the pact, then there is no longer a justification for government leaders to keep the information secret.

Yet all the taxpaying public will know about this contract prior to today's scheduled vote is what few details the union and county leaders have chosen to release.

This contract will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money and will have a direct impact on taxes for years to come.

Warren County supervisors owe it to their constituents to release the tentative contract to the citizens before they vote, so they have time to digest the details and to offer their opinions in a public forum.

It's the taxpayers' money. They have a right to know how it's being spent.

By Mark Mahoney

[M]any members of the public feel that if they speak up, they'll be punished in some way. In feeling powerless, they either give up or continue to suffer in silence.

Sometimes, you tap into a stream of anger and resentment and frustration that you never knew existed.

Whenever we've run articles and editorials and columns in the past on Sunshine Week to promote public awareness of open government issues, the response from the public has been a resounding thud. Nothin'.

All well and good, we assumed. Obviously, you've got better things to do. Like your jobs and taking care of your children and paying the bills. We understand.

But recently, with the introduction of a new Your Right to Know blog and a renewed push to entice people to understand the importance of free and open government, we found passion for the issue.

People do care about their government operating in secret. And what we've learned over the past few weeks is that there's a group of people who've been tilting at the windmill of secrecy for years.

Their stories are shocking and discouraging. We've had people tell us how for years they've been trying to get basic information from their government, only to be ignored or turned down. They talk about acts of retribution being brought against them for daring to exercise their rights.

They talk about being dismissed by state agencies and put down at meetings of their own local governments for simply asking for information.

In our own experience, we've been pretty successful in getting our Freedom of Information Law requests honored. It's due in part to dealing with public officials who understand and respect the public's right to know (more on that later.) But also, it's because we have an avenue at our disposal that individual citizens do not. It's called a printing press. People are often afraid that if they don't honor our FOIL requests, then they'll be publicly taken to task by our newspaper through editorials and articles. And for the most part, they're right. In fact, even though New York's Right to Know laws are among the most comprehensive in the country, they lack sufficient legal muscle to compel compliance, short of litigation. So the state Committee on Open Government and public access advocates rely on public pressure that can be generated through the media as an enforcement tool for these laws.

But that shouldn't be the case. Every citizen has a right to public records. That right doesn't belong exclusively to the people with the most clout or the people who can make government officials look bad with scathing commentary.

Yet many members of the public feel that if they speak up, they'll be punished in some way. In feeling powerless, they either give up or continue to suffer in silence.

In instituting our Your Right to Know blog, we learned very quickly that there are many courageous people who've been fighting their own anonymous battles for open government for years, without any help and without any support.

We're chastened to think our Your Right to Know blog might give them encouragement and to let them know they're not in this alone.

What we also found in our latest push for open government how many public officials deeply share and respect the public's right to know.

Last week, in speaking to the former access officer at the state Department of Education, an editor apologized for asking so many questions about a particular records-access topic and taking up the person's time. The person's response was: "It's perfectly fine. It's your right."

Locally, we have public officials who regularly go beyond the call of duty to respond to any public request.

Glens Falls City Clerk Robert Curtis is one of them. He and the entire staff at City Hall are remarkable in how they respond to FOIL requests. In more than one instance just this past month, Mr. Curtis responded to records request not only by providing the information, but including additional information he thought might help our reporters. He also provided contact people and phone numbers for others in city government who might be able to shed more light on the information being sought. Often, he'll deliver the records in person to make sure the requests were filled satisfactorily. And while cost of copies often deters people from pursuing FOIL requests, Mr. Curtis usually doesn't even charge us for the records.

Another public official with a reputation for respect for open government is longtime Queensbury Town Clerk Darleen Dougher.

In one of our internal meetings earlier this month, an editor unfamiliar with Dougher, upon hearing that she'd given us pages of documents well beyond what we'd requested, suspected she was trying to discourage us from seeking records by inundating us with paperwork. Two former Queensbury beat reporters in the room jumped up to quickly erase that perception. Ms. Dougher, like Mr. Curtis, regularly goes beyond the open government law by providing as much information as the individual might need for their record search. Like Mr. Curtis, she hardly ever charges the allowable copying fees. And like Mr. Curtis, she's really nice about it.

Open government doesn't have to be a fight. Access to your government is a basic right, and citizens shouldn't be fearful of exercising that right.

While we've found public officials who don't respect open government, we've also been lucky to find others who embrace it and honor it with their actions.

We've also found that that there are many devoted citizens out there working behind the scenes to keep government accessible and responsive for all of us.

We're happily surprised. And rightfully encouraged.