I am a proponent of live streaming video of Union Negotiations.  I've not seen that done yet  but I did stumble across this posting of the current Wright State Negotiations currently going on  http://www.wright.edu/administration/aaup/negotiations.html

I personally believe that having full disclosure of the negotiations provides the public the best insight into the complexities of the job that the employees do.  It also provides the best background into the financial situation of the city.  It also ensures that both parties are negotiating in good faith and representing the interests of the public and the employee fairly.


-------------------------------------------------------Addition (16 July 2014)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the ORC  4117
 

4117.21 Collective bargaining meetings private.

Collective bargaining meetings between public employers and employee organizations are private, and are not subject to section 121.22 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 04-01-1984

4117.22 Chapter liberally construed.

Chapter 4117: of the Revised Code shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purpose of promoting orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.

Effective Date: 04-01-1984 

In this section the term "private" is not defined.  

A lawyer provided this information:
 
I don't see this in the law itself so if accurate this must have been a result of some court cases.  It seems to me that I've heard news reports the preceded teacher or police union votes that talked about proposed salary increases.  At this time I'm not going to research to see if I can find either the court cases or the news reports.  If you know of any let me know.  

Thanks

Tom
----------------------------------------------End Addition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the reference http://www.wright.edu/administration/aaup/negotiations.html I found the April 23, 2014 post to be especially insightful in helping to understand the complexity of Health Benefits.
 

April 23, 2014

Our negotiating team, reacting to the administration's highly unacceptable proposal for Article 26 (Medical, Dental and Vision Insurance), had canceled the negotiating session for Monday, April 21. We opened the session of April 23 with an extended evaluation of that proposal and the context in which it was made.

We told the administration that their proposal article 26 -- featuring both plan design changes (i.e., worsened medical benefits) and sharp increases in monthly premium contributions paid by faculty -- were equivalent to a 0.78% pay decrease in year one of the three years to be covered by the new CBAs, a 1.52% decrease in year two, and a 1.82% decrease in year three. We explained that our calculations were based upon data provided by Horan (the consultant hired by the administration regarding health benefits).

Contribution Rates Effective Member Employer July 1, 2013 11% 14% July 1, 2014 12% 14% July 1, 2015 13% 14% July 1, 2016 14% 14%

But we also noted that BUFMs will suffer additional real pay losses due to required retirement contributions (see table to the right; three three forthcoming 1% increases will make BUFMs pay 14% of salary to retirement plans) and further losses in buying power, even with rather modest inflation expectations (1.5% per year over the three years to be covered by the new CBAs). The combined effect of all these hits -- health care, retirement, and inflation -- together with the modest pay increases the administration proposed in Article 23 (Compensation) would give BUFMs a net pay cut of 1.8% in year one, a further pay cut of 2.0% in year two, and another cut of 1.8% in year three.

We reminded the administration that over the three years covered by the current TET CBA, we have gotten a grand total of 1% in raises, not nearly enough to stay even with inflation.

We further reminded the administration of certain key features of the WSU budget proposal for the fiscal year 2014-15 (the year starting July 1, 2014) that it presented to the WSU Board of Trustees April 17, 2014:

1. The proposed budget includes $3.1 million more in salaries and wages, WSU-wide, over the budget the administration adopted for the current (2013-14) fiscal year.
2. The proposed budget calls for $3.1 million less to be spent on employee benefits.
3. Since every additional dollar spent on salaries and wages, pursuant to item 1 above, will require the administration to spend $0.14 more in retirement system payment (the administration pays 14% of salary into the retirement systems), the actual cuts to employee benefits, pursuant to item 2, will actually have to be about 114% of $3.1 million, or $3.5 million. Further, the only available means to make substantial cuts in expenditures on benefits is in health care benefits. Thus, the proposed budget must indeed be based on very severe cuts in health benefits the administration anticipates.
4. The proposed budget includes $8 for "strategic investments":
   • $1 million in unspecified strategic investments
   • $1.25 million for "student success initiatives"
   • $2.7 million for technology
   • $1 million for capital needs
   • $2 million for "marketing/branding"

   Regarding $2 million for "marketing/branding", we suggested that the brand / identity the administration could develop could be "Wright State, where the people who teach our students come last!"

5. The proposed budget includes an $8 million subsidy for intercollegiate athletics. Regarding this item, we noted that only one-third of the athletics budget goes to scholarships, and that last year, the Ohio Auditor of State web site shows that WSU's intercollegiate athletics over-ran its already subsidized budget by $0.75 million. Only a bit sarcastically, we noted that a dean who overspent her or his budget on that scale would quickly become a former dean.
6. The proposed budget includes a $1.3 million subsidy to the Nutter Center.
7. The proposed budget includes a $3.2 million subsidy to the Student Union.

Thus, we conclude that the administration has a great deal of money available, much of which is targeted for priorities that should definitely be lower than negotiating a reasonable package of salary and benefits with our union.

The session concluded with an extended discussion of 11 (Annual Evaluation).