The city of Vallejo, California has filed for bankruptcy. Apparently, the police and firefighters unions would not back down on their salary demands and the city simply doesn’t have enough money to pay them. Nice.   Vallejo has become the first city in California to file for bankruptcy because it didn't have enough money to provide basic services. This is dreadful news for Vallejo - and its citizens - but it's also an ominous report for the rest of us.   The city council's unanimous decision Tuesday night, which came after hours of impassioned public comment, represents a failure of Vallejo's police and firefighter unions to understand basic economic realities. The unions - whose members are among the highest-paid in the state - refused to allow the city to cut their pay. The lowdown:   Vallejo has been slammed by increasing costs of its public safety contracts, the housing crisis, lower property values and state raids on local coffers. The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-09 fiscal year which starts July 1. Tuesday night's dramatic vote came after months of fruitless talks between city and labor representatives.   More telling:   City employee union attorney Alan Davis has said a union-hired financial expert has produced two documents contradicting the city's assertions of an enormous deficit. Davis vowed to release the documents if an agreement was not reached. However, the unions have been unwilling to produce the reports for public review. Call me crazy, but public-sector unions who negotiate with taxpayer dollars on how to spend taxpayer dollars should be forced BY LAW to make ALL of their reports public.   Some of you will recall that we fought this battle last year. We requested documents from the state’s 2007-09 union negotiation sessions. A coalition of unions rushed to court to prevent disclosure, arguing that transparency was not in the public interest and could irreversibly harm the state’s collective bargaining process. One union negotiator said he should have the right to swear at taxpayers behind closed doors. Eventually the King County judge ruled that the records are indeed public documents and should be released to us. This was a victory, but Washington could go a step further by opening all union negotiations under the Open Meetings Act. After all, taxpayers are funding the process AND the government employee contracts.

There will be dark days ahead for American business and the economy if Barack Obama becomes the president. Especially if his coattails brings an avalanche of Democrats into Congress. All because the first order of business for the next Congress will be passage of the “card check” ideas that unions have been pushing for since [...]

Danny Westneat has a good editorial in the Seattle Times today regarding the $13.2 million education grant our state lost thanks to the Washington Education Association. As has been reported, the grant funds would have been used to increase the number of Advanced Placement courses available to students at seven high schools in our state, as well as to provide financial bonuses to teachers whose students performed well on AP exams.   Westneat points out that high schools in Texas that have implemented the programs included in the grant "saw huge increases in kids both attending and passing the AP classes," as well as "a 30 percent increase in kids scoring at least 1100 on the SAT."   I think Westneat makes one mistake in his column: He equates teachers and union officials by saying the loss of the grant "was a union thing. Teachers didn't like the part about the [financial bonuses]." Did teachers really oppose the idea of being rewarded for excellent performance? Certainly not the excellent ones! No, it's union officials who oppose rewarding teachers.   Why? Because if teachers are paid based on how well they do their jobs, the good ones will have little use for the union and the bad ones won't be sticking around long. Either way, it means less money for a union that exists to serve itself.

Last night WEA President Mary Lindquist seemed to agree with EFF and other government transparency advocates. About halfway through KVI’s "The Commentators," Lindquist admitted there needs to be more local parental involvement in decisions on teacher pay. For this to happen, parents need to be present during contract negotiations, which are currently held behind closed doors. Now that we know the WEA wants parents to be more involved in such issues, EFF is more than willing to work with the WEA to help develop agreeable model legislation to open collective bargaining sessions to the public. We already have similar language for bargaining transparency here. These collective bargaining negotiations involve a public governmental entity and public employees, happen on public time with public expenses, and deal with public money. Sounds like it is best for the children, the public, school district officials, and now the WEA to have these negotiations in public. Let's fix this problem before our children are deprived of any more free money.

Amidst reports that teachers unions just cost some Washington school districts more than $13 million in privately-funded grant money, some of which was already earmarked for two Vancouver high schools, THIS from The Columbian: Faced with a projected $2.4 million deficit next year, Vancouver Public Schools may eliminate 26 staff positions and make other cost-saving changes next year.  The irony really is painful, isn’t it?

You'd think they'd learn.  The FBI is investigating them.  The state auditor already has torched them, prompting the FBI probe.  But Bob Young at the Seattle Times says nothing has changed at the Port of Seattle when it comes to construction projects. At their April 22 meeting, they unanimously voted to spend an additional $677,000 to buy land for the new rental-car center. The original budget for land acquisition was $6 million; it had already increased to $15.7 million. Commissioners dealt with the $677,000 appropriation — including a quick staff briefing and unanimous vote — in one minute and three seconds. So, the cost has risen from $6 million to about $16.4 million.  It this whole rental car idea still a good investment?   UPDATE: In the story linked above, "Commissioner Lloyd Hara pointed out that much of the $16.5 million cruise-ship facility built at Terminal 30 just five years ago will be sold for scrap metal because the Port can't find another use for it."   Here is some more background on that.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation is on this story like white on rice. According to the original EFF post, the teachers UNION refused a grant for 13.2 MILLION DOLLARS because the NMSI wanted to give the funds directly to the teachers. Seattle schools were dealt a devastating blow today as a result of state-forced collective bargaining practices. [...]

Unlike many Supreme Court rulings, last week's decision upholding Indiana's voter I.D. law was subjected to almost immediate practical evaluation. Indiana Democrats argued the law would disenfranchise voters that trend Democratic -- the very voters flooding to the polls for today's pivotal primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.   It looks like the predictions of wide-spread voter suppression were grossly exaggerated. Challengers of the provision warned that as many as 989,000 Indiana voters lacked proper I.D. and could be turned away from the polls. (This despite their inability to produce even one plaintiff who was actually prevented from voting.)   The Washington Post reports the law has had a "mild" effect in today's primary. This story of a nun turning away her fellow sisters garnered the most attention. ("How do you suppress a voter like Maria?")   I'm sure there will be more scientific analysis as time permits. But for now, voter I.D. seems to be having the positive effect we suggested in our amicus curiae brief -- improving voter confidence and voter turnout.