Based on a recent contract settlement in the Mars School District, it would seem to be a step in the right direction that a fact finder will be brought into the labor dispute at the Seneca Valley School District. Given that a state-appointed fact finder helped bring about a reasonable settlement at Mars, the prospects for a similar settlement at Seneca are encouraging.

Still, the mechanism of using a fact finder, appointed by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, has flaws. The most obvious weakness is that the facts gathered by the fact finder are not made available to the public in time for public input.

Although outcomes will vary from fact finder to fact finder and each district's circumstances are unique, the public should know details of each side's proposal before the fact finding has begun, not after the fact finder issues his or her decision.

It is the public, specifically the payers of property taxes, who are the employers of the teachers. And as the employers, taxpayers should know what the school board is offering and what the teachers and their union are demanding.

As the system now works, the fact finder will hear from both sides and then take up to 40 days to issue a report. If the report or recommendation is approved by both sides, it then becomes the basis for a tentative contract. If the fact finder's recommendation is rejected by either side, however, the contract would be made public before being voted on again.

Making the public aware of the details of the competing contract proposals should happen earlier in the process.

There is no reason to deny the public from knowing what is being considered in terms of salary increases, pension benefits, health insurance coverage and contributions toward health insurance.

Naturally, taxpayers will compare those details to their own circumstances and personal feelings about education in their school district to help them decide which side's proposal is more reasonable. If given details of the two competing contract proposals, taxpayer feedback could play a significant role in helping bring about a settlement.

It is wrong for contract details — and the associated costs — to become publicly known only after a contract has been reached, or after the fact-finder's report has been rejected. At that point, the public has been denied a role in the process —which might well have been the intent of those who designed the current system.

Across the state, there appears to be a growing sense of the public's conclusion that ever-escalating property tax increases can no longer be tolerated. That means that taxpayers want districts to operate as cost-effectively as possible, and they expect teachers to accept conservative wage increases while also taking responsibility for paying a reasonable share of their health care costs, just like employees in most other industries.

As far as reaching a settlement at Seneca Valley, the introduction of a fact finder appears to be an encouraging development. But it would be more encouraging if details — and the cumulative costs — of both sides' proposals were known to the public before any votes are taken on a new contract.