Bothersome bidding

A change in rules sure would be efficient

AH, EFFICIENCY! What crimes have been committed in your name! It was hard not to laugh—a bitter laugh—when we heard one of the arguments for House Bill 1041 before the Arkansas General Assembly this week: It would help cities operate “more efficiently.”

That is, it would remove the requirement for a lot of competitive bidding at the city government level. Right now, the rules say anything costing $20,000 or more, or $35,000 in the case of building projects, should be put out for bids. HB1041 would increase that to 50K overall.

Efficiency! they claim.

And exclaim. You bet your brother-in-law’s driveway it would be efficient. That is, shaded from public view. No need for the mere taxpayers to get involved with details. Or be made aware of them. It’d be much more efficient if the mayor could buy a $49,999 piece of equipment from his buddy, or brother, without having to go through such bothersome bidding rules. How Louisiana. (Yes, it was a Louisiana state senator from the northern part of the state who, back in the 1990s, announced to his colleagues in Baton Rouge how sick he was of all this good government talk.)

The public only slows things down. For example, these competitive bids that save taxpayer money. And newspapers that report on those bids. That takes so much time. Much better—or rather, much more efficient, which is different—if these things could be sped through with a simple signature. Or maybe a wink.

What are some other arguments for this awful piece of legislation?

■ It would save cities time and money by foregoing public notice requirements. It sure would! It might also save the local mayor or city council embarrassments from time to time.

■ The new 50K-fits-all would keep folks from getting confused between the $20,000 requirement and the $35,000 for building projects. Because we all know how contractors get confused when given two numbers.

Not only does the letter of the wouldbe law put taxpayer money at risk, but the bill is also vague in parts. As when it says that cities can put aside all bidding in “exceptional” situations. What does the bill mean by exceptional? It’s exceptionally unclear. You can almost hear the doors being slammed and the blinds drawn.

The good folks over at the Arkansas Press Association have come out against the bill, which says a lot about the bill, and nothing good. When the watchdogs start howling, something is out there in the dark.

Here’s a question to ask lawmakers who vote for HB1041, which could come up for a vote again this week: Have local politicians in the last year proven somehow that they can be left to their own when it comes to these matters? And that they need even more leeway from the competitive bidding laws than the state already allows?

It’s an old and not very encouraging pattern: When taxpayers aren’t looking, change the rules to make it easier to spend their money. It’s just like government to devise a bidding process that reduces, or even eliminates, bidding.

Let’s not. “The fix is in” isn’t a fix. And this isn’t Louisiana.