Local Government Compliance with Filing Requirements of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act

Local Government Compliance with Filing Requirements of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act

BY U.S. MAIL and ELECTRONIC MAIL

Mary Beth Hennessy-Shotter, Chair
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission
495 W. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08618

Re: Local Government Compliance with Filing Requirements of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act

Dear Chairperson Hennessy-Shotter:

The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) reviewed publicly available data about local government entities in comparison to data from the website of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to evaluate compliance with a requirement under state law that public employers file current union contracts with PERC. OSC's review found widespread noncompliance, with approximately 64 percent of school districts and 27 percent of municipalities having failed to provide PERC with even one current collectively bargained employee contract as of 2021. To conduct its review, OSC took a snapshot of the data on PERC's website on December 1, 2023 and analyzed it. The analysis revealed substantially higher rates of non-compliance when contracts from 2022 to 2024 were considered, but for purposes of this report, OSC excluded the more recent contracts and focused on compliance through the end of 2021 to highlight school districts and municipalities that had been out of compliance for approximately two years at the time OSC obtained the data. This was designed to provide school districts and municipalities the most favorable analysis possible. Still, it appears that there has been a pronounced downward trend in compliance by school districts and municipalities in the past decade.

This problem appears to be longstanding-69 school districts and 12 municipalities have not provided PERC with their contracts since at least 2010, with an additional 6 school districts and 5 municipalities not listed on PERC's website at all-and the rate of noncompliance has been steadily worsening in recent years. The failure of these entities to comply with their filing obligations undermines transparency by creating a gap in access to crucial information about public employee labor agreements. This matters because employee compensation is generally the largest municipal expense, and teachers' salaries and benefits are typically the most expensive elements of a school district's budget.^[1] Local government officials, school administrators, and other stakeholders such as public employees and union officials rely on access to current union contracts to understand and compare the terms and conditions of employment across different jurisdictions. This information informs negotiations as it helps parties benchmark their offers and demands against those of other similar entities, ensuring fair and competitive agreements. For taxpayers, the practice of filing union contracts promotes transparency and accountability by enabling public scrutiny of how tax dollars are being allocated to employee compensation. This, in turn, fosters trust in local government and ensures that public resources are managed effectively and efficiently.

Currently, PERC's passive approach enables public employers to avoid compliance with a state law that promotes transparency and provides information that is useful for both unions and government entities involved in labor negotiations. Given these findings, OSC recommends that PERC or, alternatively, the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services (DLGS), and the Department of Education (DOE), create an enforcement mechanism to require local government entities to comply with their obligation to provide collective bargaining agreements to PERC.

Methodology

To evaluate compliance with the requirement that public employers file their current union contracts with PERC, OSC compared the data from PERC's website against the publicly available results of a survey of local government entities conducted by DLGS and school district data collected by DOE. OSC examined a judgmental sample of data regarding municipalities listed on DLGS's most recent "Best Practices Inventory" (the 2023 DLGS Survey)^[2] and data about school districts identified by DOE as public school districts for the 2022-2023 school year (the DOE School District Data).^[3]

Of the 565 municipalities listed on the 2023 DLGS Survey, OSC excluded 73 of 78 municipalities that informed DLGS that the union contract filing requirement was not applicable to them.^[4] OSC also excluded three municipalities that stated the requirement applied to them even though their most recent "user-friendly budgets" reported that they had no union members.^[5] Finally, OSC omitted one of the two municipalities that did not respond to the 2023 DLGS Survey.^[6] A detailed summary of the municipalities reviewed by OSC is attached as Appendix A.

For school districts, OSC compared the data from PERC's website to a list of public school districts reported by DOE on its website.^[7] For clarity, OSC excluded all school districts that were provided a charter school code, renaissance schools, and any non-operational or defunct school districts. Although charter schools and renaissance schools would be required to file any union contracts with PERC, OSC assumed for its analysis that most school-related union contracts arise from public school districts. A detailed summary of the school districts reviewed by OSC is attached as Appendix B.

OSC also corrected for typographical errors and misidentified contracts on PERC's website. For example, Bergen County's contract with the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association for 2012 to 2016 is misidentified as a municipal contract. Similarly, PERC's listing of Oaklyn Township (Camden) includes both municipal contracts and a contract for the Oaklyn Public School District that was not properly categorized.

Finally, given the complexities involved with evaluating total compliance with the requirement to provide contracts to PERC, OSC conservatively tested compliance by evaluating whether school districts and municipalities have at least one current union contract on PERC's website. This means that although some school districts and municipalities have multiple current contracts, others may only have a single current contract despite having employees in multiple unions and may not be in compliance as to all other of their union contracts. Because OSC took a snapshot in time to measure compliance, some school districts and municipalities may have complied with the law by providing one or more contracts to PERC since OSC collected the data on December 1, 2023. Given the lapse in time, OSC focused on the end of 2021 to evaluate compliance.

Background and Raw Data

A. PERC and the Employer-Employee Relations Act's Longstanding Filing Requirement

In 1941, the Legislature enacted the New Jersey Labor Mediation Act, which established the State Board of Mediation as the primary entity responsible for resolving labor disputes and promoting peaceful labor-management relations in the private sector.^[8] In 1968, the Legislature passed the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which expanded negotiations to the public sector and established the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) as an independent agency responsible for resolving labor disputes in the public sector and for administering and enforcing the provisions of the EERA.^[9]

PERC resolves questions regarding public-sector collective negotiation units, such as elections to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a particular majority representative, and decisions about which negotiation unit, if any, employees belong in, as well as to determine whether a matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. Disputes over the scope of negotiations generally arise in one of two contexts: first, during collective negotiations, when one party seeks to negotiate a matter that the other party contends is not mandatory; and second, when an employee organization seeks to submit a matter to binding arbitration that the employer argues is a managerial prerogative, not a term or condition of employment.^[10]

PERC determines the scope of negotiations, mediates negotiation impasses, and maintains panels of factfinders and arbitrators for contract formation and dispute resolution. It also reviews unfair labor practice charges, such as failure to negotiate in good faith and interference with EERA rights, and may file grievances and assist employees and organizations.^[11]

Since its enactment in 1968, the EERA has required public employers to file with PERC "a copy of any contracts it has negotiated with public employee representatives following the consummation of negotiations." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.2. The EERA sought to enable public and school employees to present grievances while ensuring the efficient operation of government.^[12] To address this issue, the Legislature created the Public and School Employees' Grievance Procedure Study Commission which, in its 1968 final report, proposed the creation of what became PERC.^[13]

B. PERC's Online Data Disclosure in Response to Task Force Oversight

In 1977, the Legislature amended the EERA to require compulsory arbitration of labor disputes for police and fire union members because law enforcement officers and firefighters were not permitted to strike.^[14] This process, known as interest arbitration, is used to resolve impasses in negotiations between public employers and public employee unions when the parties cannot reach an agreement on the terms of a new contract. Interest arbitration provides a mechanism for a neutral third party (the arbitrator) to make binding decisions on disputed issues and ensures that essential public services continue uninterrupted while providing a fair resolution mechanism for labor contract negotiations.^[15]

The 1995 Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act further amended the EERA to give PERC jurisdiction to decide appeals of interest arbitration awards issued to resolve negotiations impasses involving police officers and firefighters.^[16] Previously, the Superior Court considered challenges to interest arbitration awards brought by police officers and firefighters.

In 2010, the Legislature lowered the property tax levy cap on municipalities from four percent to two percent.^[17]

To study the effect of capping arbitration awards to two percent, the Legislature also created the Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force was to "study the effect and impact of the arbitration award cap upon local property taxes; collective bargaining agreements; arbitration awards; municipal services; municipal expenditures; municipal public safety services, . . . particularly with regard to age, experience, and staffing levels; and such other matters as the members deem appropriate and necessary to evaluate the effects and impact of the arbitration award cap." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.8(e)(1).

The Task Force was also tasked with studying "total compensation rates, including factors subject to the arbitration award cap and factors exempt from the arbitration award cap, of police and fire personnel throughout the State and make recommendations thereon." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.8(e)(2).

To assist in the Task Force's review, PERC was required to post on its website "all collective negotiations agreements and interest arbitration awards entered or awarded after the date of enactment [December 21, 2010]." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.8(d)(2).

The Task Force was to issue a final report on or before April 1, 2014, then expire. However, with the continued extension of the two percent cap, the Task Force and the requirement that it issue annual reports were extended to December 31, 2017. P.L. 2014, c. 11, § 4; see Sponsor's Statement to A. 3424, 11 (2014).

The Task Force, in its initial 2011 report, noted that PERC was working with DLGS to update its database of then current union contracts. The Task Force stated that "[c]ompliance with that provision, however, has not been consistent and, in the law enforcement area, such data is critical to the Task Force to complete its obligations."^[18] In its 2014 report, the Task Force commented on improving reporting:

In our 2011 report, we made recommendations to PERC regarding the compilation and reporting of interest arbitration awards. On PERC's web site . . . the list of public sector labor agreements has expanded as a result of those efforts. [DLGS] has circulated notices to every municipality, county and other public employers within their jurisdiction to remind them of their obligation to provide PERC with electronic copies of current public sector collective negotiations agreements. PERC currently has 724 police/fire contracts in its database with expiration dates from 2008 to 2017. By having this information readily available on a public web site, parties will instantly have available comparative contract information from multiple entities in the event of an interest arbitration filing. As noted previously, while this obligation already existed for all public sector labor agreements (not just police and fire contracts) under N.J.S.A . 34:13A-8.2 (which requires public employers to "file with the commission a copy of any contracts it has negotiated with public employee representatives following the consummation of negotiations") the changes mentioned above will help achieve greater compliance with this requirement.^[19]

OSC's review demonstrates that, other than DLGS's effort mentioned above and its ongoing inquiry on its annual best practices survey, the efforts to make the information readily available were short-lived. Non-compliance with the union contract filing requirement has only worsened since the Task Force's initial observation of inconsistent compliance in 2011.^[20]

C. Evaluating PERC Website's Raw Data for Compliance

On December 1, 2023, OSC captured data from PERC's website as to all posted union contracts. The raw data from PERC's website showing which entities have at least one current union contract is presented in the table below:

Entity Type	One or More Current Contracts	No Current Contracts	Total	% With One or More Current Contracts
Municipal	317	307	624	51%
School District	131	503	634	21%
Authority	25	91	116	22%
Higher Education	3	21	24	13%
County	36	120	156	23%
State	5	3	8	63%
Total	517	1,045	1,562	33%

However, this raw data is misleading because the PERC website lists all entities that have ever submitted contracts to PERC. The earliest contract listed is for Highlands Board of Education's 1966 "Highlands EA." But some listed entities that existed in the 1980s and 1990s no longer exist. For example, due to the State Judicial Unification Act,^[21] county probation office contracts are now historical. Similarly, some entities that once had large workforces no longer have collective bargaining agreements due to shared services or demographic changes. Additionally, some entities are misidentified: Kean University and Rowan University are characterized as "State," instead of "Higher Education." These entities distort the categories and count of current entities and thus were not considered in evaluating compliance with the EERA's union contract filing requirement.

For purposes of its review, OSC focused on municipal and school district contracts because of the large number of affected taxpayers. By omitting historical and defunct entities, OSC was able to reach a more accurate number of entities that are complying with the EERA's requirement that public employers provide union contracts to PERC.

Findings

OSC's review found that 64 percent of the required school districts and 27 percent of the required municipalities have not provided at least one current union contract to PERC as of December 31, 2021. The widespread noncompliance has steadily worsened over the last decade and 17 local government entities have not submitted any contracts to PERC in the past 13 years. There is currently no enforcement mechanism to compel government entities to comply with the EERA's requirements. There appears to be limited awareness among local governments of the law's filing requirement, with PERC solely providing a PDF document on its website but no outreach or reminder of the local government's filing obligations. Also, OSC's review did not reveal any routine notice of the filing requirements sent to local governments, other than the DLGS Best Practices survey. Further, there appears to be no mechanism to notify those entities that have failed to provide updated contracts or to pursue those who do not comply with the law after a period of time.^[22]

A. As of 2021, Approximately 64 Percent of School Districts Have Failed to Provide a Current Union Contract to PERC as Required by State Law

DOE maintains a table on its website that indicates New Jersey has 697 "local educational agencies," including 593 operating school districts, 85 charter schools, 3 renaissance schools, and 16 non-operating school districts.^[23] The table is undated and does not link to a specific source, but DOE's website also offers a separate spreadsheet listing all public school districts.^[24] The spreadsheet includes 688 entries, with 86 charter schools and 3 additional schools without charter codes.[25] One district is directly operated by DOE and was excluded from OSC's review.^[26] DOE's spreadsheet identifies 8 non-operational districts, but OSC found at least 12.^[27] For its review, OSC relied on DOE's spreadsheet, excluding charter, renaissance, non-operational, and defunct districts, resulting in 586 operating school districts.^[28]

Based on data from PERC's website, approximately 64 percent of these school districts have not complied with the law as they have failed to provide at least one current union contract in accordance with the EERA as of December 31, 2021. Even assuming there was no delay in negotiations, or in forwarding to PERC, 413 school districts, or 70 percent, did not have a contract listed beyond 2022. For a statistical summary, and the full dataset illustrating historical and current compliance status for each school district reviewed, please see Appendix A. As the following chart depicts, the number of compliant school districts has been steadily decreasing since PERC first began posting union contracts on its website.

In fact, 69 school districts that were not in compliance in 2010 have, as of December 1, 2023, still not submitted their union contracts to PERC, meaning they have been out of compliance for more than 13 years. Six public school districts do not appear on PERC's website at all, suggesting that they have never submitted contracts to PERC. See Appendix A.

B. As of 2021, Approximately 27 Percent of Municipalities Have Failed to File a Current Union Contract with PERC

Based on OSC's review of 2023 DLGS Survey responses, 488 municipalities should be filing union contracts with PERC.^[29]

According to the self-reported answers submitted by municipalities in response to the 2022 DLGS Survey, 40 municipalities that were required to provide contracts had not provided the most recent contracts to PERC-a noncompliance rate of approximately 8.25 percent.^[30] However, when the local governments' 2022 DLGS Survey responses are compared against PERC's website, the data reveal that the actual rate of noncompliance is much higher. An evaluation of each municipality's posted contract as of 2021 demonstrates that 130 municipalities, or 27 percent, did not provide the union contract to PERC. Even assuming there was no delay in negotiations, or in forwarding to PERC, 188 municipalities, or 39 percent, did not have a contract listed beyond 2022. PERC informed OSC that there is not a significant backlog or delay in posting the contracts it receives online.

For a statistical summary, and the full dataset which illustrates the historical and current compliance status for each municipality reviewed, please see Appendix B. As the following chart depicts, the number of noncompliant municipalities has been steadily increasing since PERC first began posting union contracts on its website.

As with school districts, Appendix B also shows that 12 municipalities that were not in compliance in 2010 have remained out of compliance for the past 13 years. Five municipalities do not appear on PERC's website at all, suggesting that they have never submitted union contracts to PERC.

A factor in the higher compliance rate with municipalities as compared to school districts is likely that the annual municipal survey is required by DLGS. As the Task Force noted in its initial 2011 report, DLGS likely included a request for information about compliance with the EERA's requirements because PERC was coordinating with DLGS to obtain contracts. In DLGS's annual survey, municipalities continue to be asked whether their most recent union contracts have been provided to PERC. The available data does not clearly indicate the cause of the continued decline in compliance notwithstanding the inclusion of this issue in DLGS's annual survey. However, the precipitous drop in municipalities submitting their union contracts to PERC suggests that additional efforts are needed to increase awareness of this requirement and encourage compliance.

C. Local Government Noncompliance with the EERA's Union Contract Filing Requirements Likely Results from a Lack of Awareness and Enforcement

The significant decline in compliance with the EERA's union contract filing requirements in recent years suggests that school districts and municipalities may not be aware of the law or are electing not to comply with it. While OSC's data analysis cannot definitively answer why so many local government entities have fallen out of compliance, it is likely that additional notice and training would promote compliance.

During its review, OSC also found that there are no existing enforcement mechanisms that can be utilized to compel public employers to comply with the EERA's union contract filing requirements. PERC opined that, because it is in the position of acting as a neutral arbiter between unions and local governments, it is not appropriate that PERC attempt to enforce filing compliance. Should a local entity or union seek PERC's assistance in dispute resolution, and the parties provide copies of the relevant union contracts in the course of resolving issues, PERC will post those contracts to its website.

Notwithstanding PERC's contention that it would not be appropriate for it to enforce the contract filing requirement, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-11 empowers PERC to create rules, "as may be necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of the provisions of" the EERA. PERC has a long history of rulemaking, including for various administrative processes, such as the time and manner to submit documents in support of mediation, arbitration, scope of negotiations, and unfair practices proceedings before PERC. See generally, N.J.A.C. 19:10 to 19:19 (providing procedures, including deadlines and notices, for the various contract resolution processes that are heard before the commission).

PERC has rulemaking authority and should consider crafting an administrative enforcement mechanism to encourage compliance with the EERA's requirements. For example, PERC could calculate the costs associated with reviewing and maintaining its online database of contracts and charge a fee to cover the costs of pursuing local governments that do not comply with the law. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.3 (stating that the "commission may establish a fee schedule to cover the costs of effectuating the provisions of" the EERA). PERC regulations already contain rules for costs of arbitration, N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.12; cost of super-conciliation, N.J.A.C. 19:12A-1.5; and fees for interest arbitration, N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.12. PERC could charge all entities required to file their union contracts a fee, subject to waiver if the contract is submitted within 60 days of execution as measured by the date that the last party signed the contract. There may be numerous enforcement tools that PERC could implement to boost compliance with the EERA's requirements-PERC should engage in a process to determine the best way forward. In its response to a draft copy of this report, PERC expressed skepticism that it has the authority to create such an enforcement mechanism under the EERA. But this position appears inconsistent with the EERA, and PERC should, at a minimum, seek legal advice from the Attorney General to better understand the limits of its rulemaking powers under the EERA.

As with its other rules which establish expectations for parties that seek PERC's involvement in negotiations, creation of an enforcement mechanism through rulemaking would bolster rather than undermine PERC's neutrality. PERC's lack of engagement on this issue enables many public employers to avoid compliance with the contract filing requirements of the EERA, which reduces transparency and withholds useful information from both unions and government entities involved in interest arbitration. As the Task Force noted in its 2014 report, public posting of electronic copies of current public sector collective negotiations agreements means that negotiating "parties will instantly have available comparative contract information from multiple entities in the event of an interest arbitration filing."^[31] The posting of union contracts on PERC's website is an important tool for unions, government entities, and the public.

Although it does not appear from OSC's review of relevant legislative history that the primary intent of the EERA and its subsequent amendments was to provide transparency for taxpayers, in practice, the filing and posting online of union contracts is the only way to provide transparency to taxpayers on a statewide basis. Without ready access to this information, taxpayers must either affirmatively request these materials from relevant entities or remain in the dark about their government's largest financial obligation-paying its employees.

PERC's Response to this Letter

OSC provided a draft copy of this report to PERC officials for their review and comment. PERC did not dispute any of OSC's factual findings. However, PERC disputed that it had statutory authority to create a regulatory enforcement mechanism to require submission of executed union contracts under the EERA. PERC indicated that if the Legislature amended the EERA to grant it such authority, it would implement an enforcement mechanism. PERC's comments were considered in preparing OSC's final report and are attached as Appendix C.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In view of the findings in this report, OSC makes the following recommendations:

1. All municipalities and school districts should review their compliance with the union contract filing requirements of the EERA, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.2. If they are not in compliance, they should submit their current union contracts to PERC as soon as practicable. In addition, they should establish internal protocols to ensure continued compliance in the future.
2. PERC should coordinate with DLGS and DOE to regularly notify municipalities and school districts of the union contract filing requirements of the EERA, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.2. PERC, DLGS, and DOE should consider additional notice and training for municipalities and school districts that are currently out of compliance.
3. After implementing notice and training, PERC should reassess school district and municipal compliance. If those efforts are unsuccessful, PERC should seek guidance from the Attorney General's Office on its regulatory authority to enforce the EERA's union contract filing requirement. If the Attorney General finds that PERC has rulemaking authority under existing law to create an enforcement mechanism under the EERA, PERC should do so. If the Attorney General finds otherwise, the Legislature should consider amending the EERA to empower PERC to ensure compliance with its union contract filing requirements, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.2.
4. Although DLGS monitors municipalities through its annual survey to determine whether a municipality has complied with the EERA's union contract filing requirement, it should implement additional measures to compel local governments to comply, such as imposing monetary fines for delayed filing or requiring municipalities to annually certify that their most recent union contracts have been filed with PERC as required by law.
5. For school districts, DOE should consider implementing measures to compel school districts to comply, such as requiring school district superintendents to annually certify that their district's most recent union contracts have been filed with PERC as required by law or requiring executive county superintendents, as part of their oversight of local districts, to annually verify that the school districts in their county have complied with the law.
6. During OSC's review, and in its response to the draft report, PERC reported that it is in the process of obtaining a new case management system to replace its current system which will comply with state standards and to make it more user-friendly. OSC makes the following recommendations for PERC to improve its website and data collection functionality:
   1. To prevent errors, PERC should categorize reporting entities by relevant identification numbers, such as the municipal and school district identification numbers used by DLGS and DOE, respectively. There are many government entities with similar names-utilizing relevant identification numbers would prevent errors and ensure that all posted information corresponds to the correct local government.
   2. PERC should distinguish between active and inactive local entities. The posting of historic contracts for defunct entities should be archived in a separate database, a static location, and/or provided to the State Library and State Archives. In order to ascertain when an entity ceases to exist or no longer engages in collective negotiations, PERC should require relevant entities, and/or state agencies that oversee such changes, to promptly notify PERC as to such changes in status.
   3. PERC should require that the documents submitted for posting are in a readily searchable and machine-readable format.
   4. PERC should ensure that the updated database and website conform to state policies regarding website appearance and usability.
   5. PERC noted that it still receives some contracts via mail that must be scanned and uploaded by its staff. We recommend that PERC require that all contracts be submitted electronically to prevent administrative delays and scanning error

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

KEVIN D. WALSH
ACTING STATE COMPTROLLER

By: Bryan Edward Lucas
Deputy Chief Counsel

c: Kevin Dehmer, Acting Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Education
Jacquelyn A Suarez, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs

[1]See Department of Community Affairs, Municipal Budgeting Overview, https://www.njlm.org/DocumentCenter/View/10499/Municipal-Budgeting-Overview-; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances: 2021, Secondary Education Finance, Table Summary, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/school-finances/tables/2021/secondary-education-finance/els ec21_sumtables.xls (showing that, as of 2021, New Jersey schools spend 78.35 percent of their annual budgets on employee salaries and benefits, and 60.87 percent on teacher salaries and benefits).

[2]See DLGS, CY2011/SFY2012 through CY 2023/SFY2024 Best Practices Answers, https://www.nj.gov/dca/dlgs/programs/best_practices_docs/2023/CY2011-SFY2012%20through%20CY2023-SFY2024%20Best%20Practices%20Results.xlsx. DLGS provides technical and financial assistance in budgeting, financial reporting, joint services, purchasing, and management issues to all municipalities of the State of New Jersey. The Best Practices Inventory is required by each year's appropriations law and is used to determine the allocation of state aid to municipalities. For FY24, see P.L. 2024, c. 74, p. 56 ("the municipality shall submit to the Director of the Division of Local Government Services a report describing the municipality's compliance with the 'Best Practices Inventory' established by the Director of the Division of Local Government Services and shall receive at least a minimum score on such inventory as determined by the Director of the Division of Local Government Services.").

[3]See DOE, NJ Public School Districts Directory, https://homeroom4.doe.state.nj.us/public/districtpublicschools/download/NJPubSchoolDistricts.csv. (NJ Department of Education's listing of all public school districts in New Jersey).

[4] Notably, five of these municipalities-Cresskill Borough (Bergen), Upper Freehold (Monmouth), Sussex Borough (Sussex), West Amwell (Hunterdon), and Union Township (Hunterdon)-incongruously self-reported union employees to DLGS in their most recent user-friendly budgets, suggesting their response to the 2023 DLGS Survey was erroneous and that they may also be out of compliance with the union contract filing requirement.

[5] Since 2007, local governments are required to provide a plain-language budget summary or "user friendly" to the DLGS. See N.J.S.A. 40A:5-48. Since 2022, the DLGS has provided all information in a database that contains budget information since 2015 for municipalities. For the most recent database see https://www.nj.gov/dca/dlgs/programs/mc_budget_docs/2024%20UFB%20Database%20-%20FINAL.xlsm. The three municipalities that have reported no union members are: Lawrence Township (Cumberland); Lebanon Borough (Hunterdon); and Victory Gardens Borough (Morris).

[6] OSC excluded Pine Valley Borough (Camden) because it did not have union members as of its most recent user-friendly budget. OSC considered the other, Frenchtown Borough (Hunterdon), in its analysis because Frenchtown reported having union employees to DLGS in its most recent user-friendly budget.

[7] State of N.J. Department of Education, Public School Districts, https:// homeroom4.doe.state.nj.us/public/districtpublicschools/download/NJPubSchoolDistricts.cvs.

[8] P.L. 1941, c.100, codified at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -13.

[9] P.L. 1968, c. 303, codified at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -43.

[10] State of New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, Matters that come before the public employment relations commission, https://www.nj.gov/perc/documents/Matters_That_Come_Before_Commission.pdf.

[11] State of New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, Introduction/Agency Overview, https://www.nj.gov/perc/what/intro/.

[12] See P.L. 1966, c. 170, amended by P.L. 1967, c. 8.

[13] State of New Jersey, Public and School Employees' Grievance Procedure Study Commission, Final Report to the Governor and the Legislature, https://dspace.njstatelib.org/bitstream/handle/10929/78571/e541968.pdf.

[14] P.L. 1977, c. 85, codified at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14 (the purpose was to "establish a means of resolving conflict between public employers and their employees affecting the welfare of its citizens. Compulsory arbitration is the only final resolve to these conflicts that would eliminate any and all slowdowns, job actions or outright strikes by employees providing these vital services.")

[15]See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.

[16] P.L. 1995, c. 425.

[17]See P.L. 2010, c. 44, §§ 4, 9, codified as N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38 and N.J.S.A. 40A:4-45.45 respectively (capping property tax increases).

[18] New Jersey Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force, 2011 Report, p. 3, https://www.nj.gov/perc/documents/3__Task_Force_Interim_Report_2011.06.17.pdf.

[19] New Jersey Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force, Final Report, p. 7, https://www.nj.gov/perc/documents/IATaskForceFinalReport.pdf. Note that this report was issued prior to extending the Task Force to 2017. However, the Task Force never issued a final report in 2017 because of a deadlock.

[20] Since 2017, the last year of the Task Force, municipal compliance has fallen from 90 percent to 50 percent.

[21] P.L. 1993, c.275, codified at N.J.S.A. 2B:10-1 to -9.

[22] OSC is aware that negotiations can continue after the expiration of union contracts, with the parties maintaining the status quo depending on the terms of the prior agreement. SeeMatter of County of Atlantic, 230 N.J. 237, 255 (2017) (expired contract terms that all terms and conditions set forth will continue until a successor agreement is reached are valid). The parties should notify PERC in such instances, and PERC can post the notification on its website.

[23] NJ Department of Education, New Jersey Public Schools Fact Sheet 2023-2024, https://www.nj.gov/education/doedata/fact.shtml.

[24] State of N.J. Department of Education, Public School Districts, https://homeroom4.doe.state.nj.us/public/districtpublicschools/download/NJPubSchoolDistricts.csv.

[25] Those entities are KIPP (Camden), Camden Prep (Camden), and Mastery Schools of Camden, Inc. (Camden).

[26] The Marie Katzenbach School for the Deaf (Mercer) has been operated by DOE since at least 1893. N.J.S.A. 18A:61-1; see also Helen Kull, Ewing Then and Now: The first school for the deaf in N.J. CommunityNews, https://www.communitynews.org/news/commentary/ewing-then-and-now-the-first-school-for-the-deaf-in-n-j/article_96dcc915-5b86-5094-b39a-2fbcd7f471c8.html.

[27] Longport (Atlantic), Corbin City (Atlantic), Rockleigh (Bergen), Chesilhurst (Camden), Hi Nella (Camden), Cape May Point (Cape May), West Wildwood (Cape May), Newfield (Gloucester), Allenhurst (Monmouth), Interlaken (Monmouth), Loch Arbour (Monmouth), Lake Como (Monmouth). These school districts were reported as non-operational districts by DOE in 2009 and were verified as currently active by reviewing the school district's user-friendly budget for the current school year. See NJ Department of Education, 13 Non-Operating School Districts Eliminated, https://www.nj.gov/education/news/2009/0701nonops.pdf.

[28] While there were 580 school districts on PERC's website, six school districts listed on DOE's spreadsheet do not appear on PERC's website: North Arlington School District (Bergen); Woodland Township School District (Burlington); Hampton Borough School District (Hunterdon); Bayshore Jointure Commission School District (Monmouth); Roosevelt Borough Public School District (Monmouth); and Ocean Gate School District (Ocean).

[29] PERC's website only lists 483 of those municipalities. Five municipalities that reported having union employees in their user-friendly budgets have never provided their union contracts to PERC: Interlaken Borough (Monmouth); Fairfield Township (Cumberland); Pittsgrove Township (Salem); Rocky Hill Borough (Somerset); and Mansfield Township (Warren). These 5 municipalities added to PERC's list of 483 totals 488 municipalities.

[30] State of New Jersey, Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services, 2011-2023 Best Practices Survey Summary, https://www.nj.gov/dca/dlgs/programs/best_practices_docs/2023/CY2011-SFY2012%20through%20CY2023-SFY2024%20Best%20Practices%20Results.xlsx. Note that CY 2022, SFY 2023 answers were only available at the time used to calculate the compliance rate. The most recent responses show a similar non-compliance rate: 51 municipalities and a rate of approximately 8.2 percent.

[31] New Jersey Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force, Final Report (March 19, 2014, p. 7, https://www.nj.gov/perc/documents/IATaskForceFinalReport.pdf.