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 ), representing the 2nd senate district of Carteret, Craven and Pamlico Counties, has generated a major letter writing and phone campaign to state senators demanding that they vote against the act when it is brought to floor this coming week, just days before the deadline closes for the consideration of all new legislation.

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. Sen Sanderson, committee co-chair along with Sen. Danny Britt, (R), Columbus County, 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 state organizations that operate as quasi-unions.

That opposition ratcheted up Tuesday during a second hearing before the Judiciary Committee and then again Thursday during a senate Rules Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Bill Rabon, (R ), Brunswick County, also a co-sponsor of the bill. The effort has now turned into an onslaught of calls to legislators demanding a No vote.

In Tuesday’s Judicial Committee meeting the state’s two largest employee unions, the State Employees Association of N.C. (SEANC) and the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) 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 organizations and 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 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 safeguards privacy rights of employee through procedures that are well-known to public sector lawyers. All of which answers the complaints of the opposing organizations and in fact strengthens the protections they contend are important.

In 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 citizens of the state, for whom these employees work.

As John Bussian, a Raleigh based media lawyer representing the N.C. 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 without full transparency. SB 355 will go a long way to assure that we begin to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.

(3) comments

DeadBolt

These 'servant positions' need to be scrutinized much HEAVIER' , and dealt with swiftly when the PUBLIC, ie: the boss, says so.

ps..... THEY ARE ALL SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE, AND WE ARE THE employer, NOT THE ENTITY WE ELECTED FOR A PARTIAL TIME. Get it straight.

David Collins

The last thing that these folks want is anyone knowing that they are actually doing or doing to you . Slowly we are hearing about more and more questionable actions from our public agencies . No particular administration owns this , just a general decay due to no oversight that is not in itself tainted . That is why over history governments ultimately fail . Greed !

noitall

And I quote, "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.” Key word is EFFORTS. The defense is to agree but not to agree in exchange for tribute, Sound like full employment program for the lawyer industry. I still carry a Teamster card and am entitled ro a free funeral and burial in a union made casket. Cant beat that.

Welcome to the discussion.

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive/condescending attacks on other users or goading them. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning.