IF YOU WANT to drive the nail into Rhode Island’s coffin, Senate bill 0713 makes an ideal hammer.

This remarkably reckless and profoundly anti-democratic piece of special-interest legislation –– a sop to teachers unions, and a little-disguised attack on taxpayers and public-school students –– would effectively lock in place unsustainable teacher-union contacts indefinitely.

It would not matter whether communities could afford them or not. They would be stuck, by law, meeting the terms of an old contract until a new one could be negotiated.

In hard times –– such as those Rhode Island will face for perhaps years to come –– the unions would have little incentive to relent on benefits, salaries or measures affecting performance in the classroom. The bill would have the effect of setting a “floor” below which the unions could never fall; everything would be up, up, up.

The legislation seemed designed as a way to stop cold the East Providence School Committee, which has set a rare example for other committees of risking the wrath of the unions.

Facing enormous deficits and limits on property-tax increases, and noting that the old contract had expired, the committee moved unilaterally to control costs, by –– among other things –– requiring union members to contribute more to the cost of their health-insurance premiums. The union countered with the argument that that represented a failure to negotiate in good faith.

That battle is now before the Rhode Island courts. But the unions, and their representatives in the Senate, were not content to let it go at that.

With little debate about the consequences, the Labor Committee passed a bill — sponsored by Rhoda Perry, Charles Levesque, Michael McCaffrey, Joshua Miller and Susan Sosnowski (are their taxpaying constituents paying attention?) –– and hustled it onto the Senate floor the next day, where it passed 32-2. Only two senators –– Francis Maher (R.-Exeter) and Michael Pinga (D.-West Warwick) –– had the sense (or guts) to vote no. It then was rushed over to the House Labor Committee, which passed it.

By then, the public had caught on, and was aghast at the latest example of government by and for the special interests. Editorials, letters, radio talkmeisters and blogs went wild over the potential cost. Cooler heads in the House seemed to prevail. That chamber passed the state budget without approving the union bill, leaving the legislation in limbo. And the members got out of Dodge.

The House expects to return later this month, unfortunately, to pursue “unfinished business.” So the public is not safe yet.

By some estimates the bill could drive some Rhode Island communities into bankruptcy; at the very least, it would send property taxes soaring, further damaging the state’s economic competitiveness and driving away more of the middle class.

But this is not just about money or destroying the taxpayers’ bargaining strength at the negotiating table. It is also about eroding democracy by stealing power from local elected representatives.

It may not even be constitutional, political commentator Brian Bishop has observed, because it would bind elected officials to decisions made by their predecessors (one reason contracts are generally now limited to three years). Since a large percentage of the cost of running any community is governed by teacher-union contracts, such a change would render school committee elections of much less consequence. A committee would be enslaved by decisions made by previous committees, often under vastly different economic circumstances. And such bold actions in an economic crisis as those by the East Providence School Committee would no longer be permitted.

Locking in contracts is also a way to block reform, keeping Rhode Island students –– particularly poor ones trapped in failing urban schools — from receiving the first-class educations that taxpayers generously support.

This is an idea that, at the very least, merits serious discussion, rather than the rush treatment it got in the Senate. When something is whipped through the legislature at lightning speed, it is a good bet that it harms the public and serves special interests. When something is discussed to death, and still not passed, it is a good sign the special interests oppose it and the public supports it. To wit: The General Assembly has refused, yet again, to create fair elections in Rhode Island, as in most other states, by eliminating the corrupting master lever. In doing so, it cavalierly ignored the formal wishes of the state’s top election officials and the government of 23 Rhode Island communities. And Rhode Island has still not joined 48 of the 49 states that make indoor prostitution illegal. (In Nevada, prostitution is legal in some counties but strictly regulated.)

If Rhode Island is ever to escape from its economic and civic rut, it needs representatives who will heed the cry of the common people, not just the back-room whispers of campaign contributors and well-heeled special interests.

Edward Achorn is The Journal’s deputy editorial-pages editor ( eachorn@projo.com).