2. To conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel;

Generally, a public body must identify the specific non-union personnel or collective bargaining unit with which it is negotiating before entering into executive session under Purpose 2.  A public body may withhold the identity of the non-union personnel or bargaining unit if publicly disclosing that information would compromise the purpose for which the executive session was called.  While we generally defer to public bodies’ assessment of whether the inclusion of such details would compromise the purpose for an executive session, a public body must be able to demonstrate a reasonable basis for that claim if challenged.

While a public body may agree on terms with individual non-union personnel in executive session, the final vote to execute such agreements must be taken by the public body in open session.  In contrast, a public body may approve final terms and execute a collective bargaining agreement in executive session, but should promptly disclose the agreement in open session following its execution. 

As stated in a previous post, I believe a negotiated union contract should be disclosed at an open public meeting. This may not always happen, if ever, because it would be by a vote of a board in which a majority may not feel it is warranted. However, if one reads carefully the above paragraph, you will notice the words may and should, which seems to indicate a choice rather than a must. 

Why bring this to light? Why write so many paragraphs on a subject of negotiated extras? The answer is simple, to point out the costs of employment other than wages and benefits such as insurance and pension, which all involve budget. It is called being informed and in this case, it is informing all of the true costs of government and departments. It is just like accounting for gasoline or vehicle maintenance, which is sometimes overlooked when considering the costs of say a pick-up truck or car. How you pay for it, as in cash, lease or finance, along with insurance and maintenance, reflect the true costs of such things.My opinion is, to ignore these things or pretend they do not exists, is foolish. Whether these things are offered or asked for, I believe it is important for the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers or as Dave Smart likes to refer to light & Water customers, shareholders. I believe the shareholders should know the true costs of their employees. I believe pointing this out is just as important as pointing out the $3.00 per month service charge on your light bill and/or the yearly $196.00 service charge on Town Water bills.  

It has been posted that Templeton Light can raise their rates whenever or the schools can play the state law out whenever, well it seems selectmen have or can done the same thing, in principle, by agreeing to certain things in a contract which results in the spending of public money. 

To quote Julie Farrell, this is my opinion based on facts. My opinion is this information belongs in the public forum and the facts are the extras are in a contract executed by the Templeton Board of Selectmen, paid for by Templeton taxpayers and the above is from the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. As Jeff Ritter would say, Fact, Law, Transparency! As Paul H. Cosentino sr. has on the top of his blog, "this blog is to keep Templeton citizens informed." 

Again, the information concerning items in local 39 collective bargaining agreement is in an executed contract that is now a public document, FACT, the paragraphs at the top of this post come from thee Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, LAW, in my opinion, light needed to be shined on those items so the public is aware of those costs, TRANSPARENCY!  Nothing personal here, just three words with big implications and what is wrong or bad with making public items in a labor contract?

Jeff Bennett