Fallin veto of contracting bill helps ensure transparency

G IVEN the large shortfall facing lawmakers this year, one might think they would try to reduce potential waste, mismanagement and corruption regarding expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Instead, lawmakers passed a bill that would have reduced oversight of some multimillion-dollar contracts.

Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed the bill recently, and deserves credit for demanding greater accountability in government contracting.

House Bill 1667 would have changed state law so that the “State Department of Education” would be responsible for seeking bids from vendors to provide state tests in grades 3 through 12, and the “Department” would be given authority to “award contracts based on the selected proposals that were submitted.” The legislation repealed language that previously gave the state Board of Education that authority.

As we previously noted, the phrase “State Department of Education” in this context effectively means the state superintendent. So HB 1667 would essentially have put one person in charge of awarding multimillion-dollar testing contracts.

In her veto message, Fallin noted, “This bill takes authority from the Board and directs that authority to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Department of Education. By giving this authority to the State Board of Education the Legislature previously worked to ensure a fair and objective competitive bidding process. It is my opinion that the competitive bidding process benefits the citizens of Oklahoma because it encourages transparency and competition among a wide range of nationally recognized vendors.”

HB 1667 is in “direct conflict” with provisions of state law, Fallin wrote. Those laws require the state Board of Education to direct the process of the development of academic standards and to request bids for state testing contracts. Fallin noted the board then uses “an objective third party” in evaluating those bids as part of the competitive bidding process.

By reducing transparency and independence in the bidding process, HB 1667 could have encouraged lawsuits from venders that don’t win a contract, which ultimately could disrupt the testing system and further squander limited tax dollars.

At the same time, the idea that one person should ultimately be in charge of such significant financial decisions is an invitation for potential abuse, as has been experienced throughout government at all levels, in all states, for years.

In 2015, the head of Chicago Public Schools pleaded guilty to a felony count for steering multimillion-dollar no-bid contracts to a former employer in exchange for kickbacks. In 2016, federal officials filed criminal charges against 12 current or former Detroit Public Schools principals, an assistant superintendent and a vendor in a kickback scheme. In 2012, the superintendent of the fourth-largest school district in New Jersey was convicted in a kickback scheme involving insurance. In Oklahoma, Skiatook Superintendent Gary Johnson was convicted in 2013 of accepting bribes from a custodial vendor while ignoring $570,000 in excessive charges.

To blindly accept any politician’s “trust me” promises regarding millions of dollars in contracts appears to be an invitation for trouble, not good government. Fallin’s rejection of HB 1667 was proper.