There’s a line about political compromise I’ve heard attributed to a former U.S. Senator from Oklahoma: “Sometimes a man has to rise above principle.” I think of that phrase every time I read about an “early bird” contract agreement.

Pennsylvania law (Act 88 of 1992) requires that formal contract negotiations must begin roughly six months before an existing contract is scheduled to expire — e.g., in January, 2009, for contracts expiring June 30. An early bird is a contract negotiated before a mandatory bargaining period begins. Those doing the negotiating can not only keep mum about their respective bargaining positions. They can keep mum that they are even talking to each other.

Full disclosure. My school district negotiated three early birds during my tenure as board president. (I’ve also been on the board during two strikes, one of them when I was president.) So where early birds are concerned, I’m hardly in a position to sound off self-righteously about the virtues of transparency. And, to tell the truth, I’m ambivalent on this issue.

These reflections were prompted by a story in the Erie Times-News that the Erie City SD (Erie County) may be on the verge of an early bird agreement with the 1000-member Erie Education Association, the union representing Erie teachers. I’ll admit that my first thought was, “I’m glad for everybody involved!”

The case against early birds (as with any secret contractual negotiations) is the risk of soaking taxpayers through sweetheart deals between boards and unions. Even boards that think of themselves as fiscally prudent would probably be a tad more prudent if they knew that they’d be defending their proposed contracts at public hearings a week or so before any final vote.

But there’s also a case for early birds. No one should under-estimate the value of being able to reach an agreement quietly and fairly quickly. Formal bargaining, even without strikes, diverts great chunks of administrative and board time and energy from educational leadership. Early birds are often negotiated by school superintendents, who talk regularly with local union leadership. In contrast to more formal negotiations, there may not be written proposals of record until all parties are close to an agreement, meaning that, strictly speaking, there may be nothing specific to disclose.

Moreover, early birds are typically negotiated with local union leaders without the direct participation of professional negotiators from state unions, the PSEA or AFT Pennsylvania. That’s a huge benefit where keeping the peace is concerned. Local leaders will bargain hard for their teachers’ financial interests, and they’ll check with the state-level experts on legal points. But they’ll be a lot more open to creative ways to solve problems. In a nutshell, they can usually be counted on to put the interests of the district’s own teachers and its children ahead of some statewide union political agenda.

I still believe that early birds are OK, but only if both sides agree that the board will make public disclosure of proposed contract terms well before a final board vote. (I even have no problem with keeping a tentative early bird agreement confidential until local union negotiators have had time to brief their own members. That’s a courtesy. A union is a private organization and shouldn’t be subject to the same disclosure terms as elected officials.)

Here are a couple of sentences from a news story about a pending agreement (not an early bird) in the Palisades SD (Bucks County): “If teachers ratify the agreement, the board would then vote on it. Both sides have agreed not to release details of the proposal until it’s approved.”

Imagine the public outcry if the Palisades board had said this just before inking a contract with a construction firm to build a new high school: “The building contractor and the board have agreed not to release details of the construction contract until it’s approved.” Compared with school building programs, contracts with unions cost more money, are sole-source negotiations with only one eligible supplier, and may lock in budgets for longer than the four-year terms of school directors. So what’s the logic behind requiring public hearings on building plans while allowing secret negotiations with unions?

I can say in good conscience that I never voted for an early bird contract that I wouldn’t have been willing to defend in public forum before the board vote. But that’s an easy claim to make after the fact, and the public shouldn’t have to depend on that kind of assertion. When you’re a board member worried about someone (whether in the union or the general public) sabotaging a hard-bargained agreement, it’s pretty easy to “rise above principle” on transparency. Pennsylvania needs a change in the culture of union contract negotiations, so that the responsibility of elected officials to defend their proposed agreements will be taken for granted.