Documents recently obtained from the city of Spokane by the Freedom Foundation under the Public Records Act provide some fascinating insights into the debate over a proposed city ordinance to require all employers to provide paid sick leave to employees.

The records indicate that council members and city staff supporting the paid sick leave mandate are working closely with labor unions and state progressive groups. Documents also indicate that a Freedom Foundation paper evaluating existing research on mandatory paid sick leave has been an issue of some concern for city staff.

A summary of the documents is provided below. Excerpts from quoted documents are reproduced verbatim, including errors.

1. Meeting minutes from the April 21 meeting of the Spokane Regional Labor Council’s Legislative and Political Action Committee suggest the decision to postpone action on paid sick leave was politically motivated.

“Paid sick leave – Concern was voice regarding the timing of this ordinance in relationship with election. We do not want the council members to feel like we are ‘throwing them under the bus.'”

After receiving increased pressure from the Freedom Foundation and local activists, the Spokane City Council decided to “defer” action on paid sick leave regulations until after the November city council elections. Council President Ben Stuckart told the Spokesman-Reviewthe issue was being put off because, “I’ve heard enough concerns about moving forward that I think it deserves more time… I want to move forward when I’m confident it will have enough votes to pass.”

However, despite Stuckart’s claim that the deferral was meant to provide more time for debate, the Freedom Foundation has still never received a response from Stuckart about whether he will agree to participate in a debate with the Freedom Foundation about the merits of mandatory paid sick leave laws. 

The Spokesman-Review also reported, “Councilwoman Karen Stratton, who is running to keep her seat representing northwest Spokane, said her support for delaying action isn’t about election politics.”

However, the labor council’s meeting minutes suggest the advocates of paid sick leave mandates are fully aware of the political implications of supporting a controversial policy during election season.

2. March/April 2015 emails between Blaine Stum, chair of the Spokane Human Rights Commission, and Stacy Wenzl of the Spokane Regional Health District indicate the district’s research on paid sick leave was conducted at the request of and in conjunction with the Spokane Alliance, the labor group supporting mandatory paid sick leave.

Wenzl, 3/11/15: “Thinking we might want to hook you up with the Data Center sooner rather than later as they have been discussing with Spokane Alliance doing a report that looks at local data on impacts.”

Wenzl, 3/16/15: “I think Stacy from our Data Center is meeting with Carol at Spokane Alliance this Wednesday to figure out data needs and what the Alliance needs from us.”

Additionally, Stum takes one of many shots at the accuracy of Freedom Foundation’s research.

Stum, 4/9/15: “As you can probably guess, the Freedom Foundation report is all over the place with bizarre conjecture, cherry picking and outright false and misleading statements. This is what I get to deal with in politics :(.”

3. April 9, 2015, email from Stum to Jim Dawson of Fuse Washington, Carol Krawczyk of the Spokane Alliance, Skylar Oberst of the Spokane Human Rights Commission, Council President Ben Stuckart’s legislative aide Adam McDaniel, Councilmember Amber Waldref’s legislative aide and city council candidate Lori Kinnear, and Councilmember Candace Mumm’s legislative aide Richard Rush.

“I wanted to let you know that because of (Councilmember Mike) Fagan’s use of the Freedom Foundation report on Paid Sick Leave (see here), I’ve added a response to FF’s report at the bottom of my paper. It’s lengthy, but I wanted to address issues with their report head-on, as I have a feeling it will be the most cited report in opposition to our proposal.”

4. In a June 8, 2015, email from Stum to Council President Stuckart’s legislative aide, Adam McDaniel, Stum slams the Freedom Foundation paper:

“Point being: don’t take anything that Freedom Foundation ‘survey’ says very seriously. He actually had the gall to say that health related concerns don’t seem to factor in to turnover much, even though the phenomenon of ‘job lock’ as it relates to health insurance benefits has been studied to death.” 

5. May 7-13, 2015, emails from Stum to Jim Dawson of Fuse Washington, Marilyn Watkins of the Economic Opportunity Institute, Councilmember Jon Snyder, Councilmember Karen Stratton, Councilmember Amber Waldref and her legislative aide Lori Kinnear, and Councilmember Candace Mumm’s legislative aide Richard Rush.

“I’ve attached my original report, as well as a separate pseudo-letter response to the Freedom Foundation. I drafted the letter as an exercise for me; so I could more effectively rebut any of the so-called ‘facts’ trotted out by opponents who use the Freedom Foundation report as authoritative. Rather than focus on their connections, I address the many flaws in the report.”

To his credit, Stum does not engage in meaningless ad hominem attacks against the Freedom Foundation’s credibility, at least publically. The same cannot be said of other progressive groups with whom he consulted.

6. April 8-9, 2015, emails between Stum and Jessica Milli of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR).

Stum: “As someone who is very supportive of paid sick leave policies, I’ve provided them (the city council) with an 11-page summary of current and past research on the costs of presenteeism, public health as it relates to paid sick leave and research done by organizations such as yours on impacts from cities and states that have implemented said policies. While this information has been useful, it’s been noted that opposition research has yet to be addressed (that we’re aware of). Recently, I found this report on the Council table. I’m trying to put together some information debunking the reports misstatements and shaky conclusions, but I was wondering if your organization had looked at this report and offered any pushback, and if so, what your critique is (or would be).”

Milli: “Yes, we’ve definitely seen this report before. It first popped up in Philadelphia and was passed around to all of the city councilmembers. I actually put together a letter to the Philadelphia taskforce on paid leave that addresses the contents of the report and an op-ed that was put out to coincide with it.”

Milli’s letter to the Philadelphia task force should be enough to disqualify the IWPR from conducting any serious policy research. The focus of the letter involves attempting to discredit the Freedom Foundation. Milli writes, “Maxford Nelsen is affiliated with The Freedom Foundation, an organization that is a member of the State Policy Network and the creation of American legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ‘scholar’ Bob Williams,” as though this is sufficient to prove that the Freedom Foundation report “is clearly biased.” This is an odd claim, given that IWPR is one of the foremost advocates for mandatory paid sick leave and, therefore, clearly “biased.” Does that mean IWPR’s research should be dismissed out of hand? Of course not.

But Milli’s criticism of our report’s content is no better and full of factual inaccuracies. For instance, she claims that our report “fail(s) to mention” a “study conducted in Connecticut by Appelbaum, Milkman, Elliot, and Kroeger in 2013 that found that 18.8 percent of firms reported reduced presenteeism.” In fact, pages 22-26 of our paper were solely devoted to dissecting and refuting this particular study.

7. April-May, 2015, emails between Blaine Stum and Eileen Appelbaum of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Stum: “I have done extensive research on the issue and am 100% supportive.”

Does that make him biased?

Stum: “I’m gathering some of this information from researchers because in the process of responding to a vocal critic of paid sick leave at the Freedom Foundation.”

Stum: “I’ve been thinking a lot about different questions in the various surveys and how problematic they can be if not put in a proper context. For instance, in the Colla (2009) study, they ask about the impact of PSL on employers profitability. About 1/4 of employers reported decreased profits, but the survey was also done during the height of the recession when a great many firms were experienced decreased sales. With a question like that, I’m left wondering how helpful it is. Perhaps it at least serves the purpose of debunking the scaremongering from right-wing business interests. I could see value in that.”

Basically, Stum is acknowledging that the surveys conducted primarily by paid sick leave supporters may not be entirely accurate indicators of the actual effect of mandatory paid sick leave laws. That’s not a problem, though, because such studies “(serve) the purpose of debunking the scaremongering from right-wing business interests.”

8. On July 7, Stum and Blair Anundson of SEIU 1199 exchange emails about Stum’s response to the Freedom Foundation’s invitation to debate Stuckart

Despite all of his bluster about the alleged inaccuracy of the Freedom Foundation report — which was informally reviewed by professional and academic economists prior to publication —it is telling that Stum’s grand refutation of the Freedom Foundation’s research was rather disappointing.

All in all, the disclosed documents indicate that Stuckart and other city council members and staff are closely tied into the wider network of progressive organizations. It seems likely they are proposing mandatory paid sick leave not as a Spokane-specific solution to an identified problem but as simply a way of moving forward with a boilerplate progressive agenda item, regardless of the evidence or consequences.