Shreveport sends deals exceeding $10,000 through
its Architectural/Engineering Selection Committee for contracting in these areas.
This fall, criticisms,
particularly from City Councilman James Flurry,
have come that its current structure and procedures in the city’s ordinances present
too many opportunities for a mayor to enforce a pay-for-play regime that puts
rewarding political allies first.
The committee has nine members, but the mayor in
reality appoints six entirely controlled by her – four city department heads
she can fire at will and two citizen appointees. Another she must appoint but
does not employ is the director of the Metropolitan Planning Commission. The Shreveport
City Council selects its chairman and clerk for the other two.
In fact, the community members don’t even have to live in Shreveport. Former Mayor Cedric Glover holdover David Aubrey has his and his wife’s homestead exemption listed in St. Gabriel, not on his Shreveport property, and works in Baton Rouge as a corporation’s lobbyist.
Add to that the committee, when needing to let something,
recommends three applicants without regard to bid price from which the mayor chooses
then enters into negotiations, confects a recipe for abuse. A mayor can
instruct appointees to pick a favored firm – despite nebulous wording that “support
for or against any candidate for elective office, shall not be a consideration in
the selection process” – then deliver a sweetheart deal. Bidders and the subcontractors
they collect, and their officers, can have donated profusely to a mayor’s campaign
accounts, which can tempt a mayor essentially to sell contracting to generous
contributors.
Thus, for transparency’s sake Shreveporters could
use some reforms on this issue. Least dramatically, only those who reside in
Shreveport, defined as having a homestead in its city limits, should fill the
two citizen committee slots. Such individuals will have their decisions affect
where they really live, which should make them think more wisely in performing their
duties.
The calculus for recommending also should advance
just the best applicant and explicitly should incorporate a bid price, adding
to the requirements of deciding by “demonstrated competency, qualifications and
performance on previous contracts.” The odd current practice provides no incentive
for maximizing use of taxpayer largesse. By setting weighing for the bid at
half of the scoring, the eventual winner both would reflect a judgment of competence
and best value for the city.
Finally, to ensure no undue influence occurs, the
city should prohibit contracting to firms who have contributed, directly or
indirectly, to the mayor’s or any city council members’ campaigns in the
previous two years. The ban also should extend to any corporate officers or
partners continuously employed by a potential contractor for the past two
years. For those individuals who became employed by the possible bidder within
the past two years and for any subcontractors included, the bid would have to
specify all such donations and be read into the public record when the offers
come up for consideration.
This formulation strikes a balance between rights
of political participation and taxpayer interests. Persons with an eye on city
business in this area can choose to exercise one form of expression by donating
to campaigns or forgo that in the hopes of securing a contract while exercising
political rights through other avenues such as through voting or advocacy of a
candidate.
By making these changes that increase sunlight and
remove perverse incentives that could work against the citizenry’s interest in
favor of special interests, Shreveport increases the chance of honest and more
efficient government. Tyler should work with the Council to get the necessary changes
into law to achieve this in time for the 2018 elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment