Contracts between the state government and public-employee unions — agreements that involve taxpayer money and employees who work for the people — require transparency. Instead, the Washington Supreme Court has helped codify opacity that leaves the public in the dark.

The justices ruled 8-1 late last month that early negotiation agreements must remain secret until the Legislature has passed a budget that funds the contracts. Justice Salvador Mungia, who was elected to the court in November, cast the sole dissenting vote.

The problem with the decision is that budget negotiations themselves are shrouded in secrecy throughout the legislative session. Caucus leaders typically hash out details, then file budget bills in the final days. When a two-year state operating budget involves $77.8 billion — such as the one approved this year — that leaves little time for appropriate and necessary public scrutiny.

Although the case decided recently by the state Supreme Court originated in 2022, the need for transparent negotiations with public-employee unions was evident this year. State negotiators — under the guidance of then-Gov. Jay Inslee — agreed last year to contracts that would increase costs by $4 billion over four years, with workers receiving an average raise of 3 percent.

When legislative budget writers began hammering out a spending plan, the details of those negotiations were not available to the public. Facing a revenue shortfall estimated at $16 billion over the next four years, lawmakers added numerous taxes and fees while maintaining the salary increases and abandoning a proposal from Gov. Bob Ferguson for furloughs throughout state government.

Sen. Chris Gildon, R-Puyallup, the budget leader for Senate Republicans, said: “It’s been developed in the back halls of Olympia, out of view of the public. I honestly believe it brings shame on the Legislature for doing it this way.”

That is a persistent theme for lawmakers, who increasingly invoke “legislative privilege” to shield their actions from the public eye and increasingly embrace secrecy at the expense of their duty to the people. As Mungia wrote in his dissenting opinion: “The people have the right to know what their government is doing. That value is the basis for the Public Records Act. The presumption is that the public is entitled to information their government holds. Withholding information is the exception, and this court’s responsibility is to construe any exemption … so that information is disclosed and not withheld.”

The case in question involved a 2022 lawsuit from the Citizen Action Defense Fund, which followed a refusal by the state Office of Financial Management to provide copies of negotiating positions between the state and employee unions. The Thurston County Superior Court ruled against the state, but an appeals court overturned that decision. The state Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court ruling, saying that negotiations fall under a “deliberative process exemption” from the Public Records Act.

But the Public Records Act, established by 72 percent of Washington voters in 1972, states: “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed. …” Nowhere in the 81-page law does the phrase “deliberative process exemption” appear.

At the state, federal or local level, government secrecy is a threat to our democracy. Lawmakers should recognize that danger — and courts should hold them accountable when they ignore it.