Last week, at a Manhattan news conference that was also “live-streamed” on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s website, the chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the president of Local 100 of the Transit Workers Union signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) reflecting a tentative contract deal that will shape the MTA’s labor compensation costs for years to come. The governor sat between the MTA’s Tom Prendergast and the TWU’s John Samuelson and looked on as the deal was done.

screen-shot-2014-04-21-at-35337-pm2-150x150-1066464During the news conference, Prendergast and Samuelson outlined and commented on general terms of the agreement, which also were summarized in this news release from the governor’s office (and, subsequently, on the TWU’s own website).

But what, specifically, was on that all-important piece of paper?

The answer, incredibly, boils down to “none of your business.”

The MTA is denying Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests for the MOU document with this boilerplate email response:

Pursuant to N.Y. Public Officers Law §87(2)(c), an agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that…..”if disclosed would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations”.  As of this date, the contract referenced in your request has not been approved by the MTA Board.  Therefore, in accordance with this provision, your request is denied.

So, we’ll see the all-important details only after the deal has been ratified by the MTA Board — at which point, of course, it will be too late to raise questions or objections. This is a familiar Catch-22, exploiting a FOIL loophole frequently (but not universally) cited by local elected officials throughout the state, and it comes in especially handy when management or labor or both fears that taxpayers might not like what they see in a pending contract.

Based on the official talking points alone, Nicole Gelinas has already found plenty to criticize and question in this deal. Is there something else–something worse–we’re not being told?

P.S. — It’s not necessarily clear that FOIL, as worded, actually prohibits release of a collective bargaining MOU, whether or not it is sign din public. This 1995 advisory opinion by the state Committee on Open Government noted that the issue had never been litigated, but suggested a theory under which such documents could be considered public.

As further explained in the Empire Center’s 2008 policy paper on the subject:

The Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) presumes public access to information developed or possessed by government agencies. However, section 87(2)c permits agencies to withhold information if disclosure “would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining agreements.” A 1995 advisory opinion from the Committee on Open Government describes the section 87(2)c exemption as “… intended to ensure that government agencies are not placed at a disadvantage at the bargaining table and to ensure that there is a ‘level playing field.’ For instance, if a teachers’ association requested records from a school district indicating the district’s collective bargaining strategy … disclosure would place the district at a disadvantage and the negotiations would be unfair and unbalanced.”

In such a situation, there would be “an inequality of knowledge” between the two parties. But that changes once the two sides reach a tentative agreement, at which point “it might be contended that since a copy of a tentative agreement is maintained by both the school district and the teachers’ association, there is no inequality of knowledge regarding the content of that document and that, therefore, disclosure would not impair the negotiations.”

In effect, the language means that “once a contract goes to union rank-and-file members, negotiations are over,” says Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government.

However, no state court has ruled on whether government entities can refuse to disclose details of tentative contracts. Nor apparently has any court sanctioned a municipality for releasing details of tentative contracts prior to ratification votes. The Court of Appeals, in a series of FOIL cases, repeatedly has ruled “the balance is presumptively struck in favor of disclosure.”

In New York, actual contract negotiations between public sector unions and government employers are held behind closed doors. But negotiations are subject to open-meetings laws in at least seven states—Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas. In at least four other states—Alaska, Idaho, Iowa and Ohio—the public is entitled to documents related to the negotiations.

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is a senior fellow at the Empire Center.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

Cuomo’s ‘Reinvent Policing’ Order Dodges Confrontation with Police Unions

Governor Cuomo has ordered local governments to “reinvent” their police departments or risk losing state and federal funding, but the back-up guidance from Cuomo's office sets up an arduous process that likely will conflict with other parts of state law. To put it plainly, the guidance shows the state’s “New York Tough” governor won’t take on its police unions. Read More

Lawmakers Look To Dump More Public Cash On Teamsters

State lawmakers this week moved to make public construction more expensive in a bid to steer work to one of New York’s struggling construction unions. Read More

Big Apple Pols Have Played Both Sides in NYPD Fight

New York City’s police department has come under criticism in recent days, with some city officials saying NYPD funding should be reduced. But many of the same New York City Council members parroting calls to “defund” the NYPD were just a year ago pushing Mayor Bill de Blasio to give city cops a big pay hike. It’s a reminder that New York’s elected officials, no matter how principled, routinely don’t want to say “no” to public-sector unions. Read More

Union pay remains non-“prevailing”

Barely one in five private construction workers in New York State was covered by a union contract last year, according to newly released statistics that call into question a state public works "prevailing wage" mandate that assumes 30 percent union coverage of building trades occupations across New York. Read More

Cuomo makes case against PLAs

In cutting the figurative ribbon on a big Capital Region highway project, Governor Andrew Cuomo made a convincing argument against his own policy of steering state work to building trade unions. Read More

A lesson on apprenticeships

The raw politics behind giveaways to building trade unions were on display last week in Troy, a city outside Albany. Read More

Unions puff up numbers post-Janus

One year after the U.S. Supreme Court said government workers couldn’t be forced to pay union dues, New York’s public-sector unions are concealing their losses by publishing inflated membership figures. Read More

Suffolk’s questionable contracts

New York’s most populous suburban county has just ratified a trio of labor deals with its largest unions—and, in the process, showcased some of the worst aspects of collective bargaining across the state. Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@empirecenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.