Councilwoman Liz Brown has wisely withdrawn her proposal to bar the city from hiring a business or consultant that had contributed to the political campaigns of any city officeholder or candidate. It raised First Amendment issues, and the state attorney general said it would infringe on state prerogatives. Now she says she supports a suggestion from former councilman and current candidate John Crawford. Crawford's proposal is much better and is the kind of ordinance Brown should have introduced in the first place. It would require professional services contracts, which are now awarded noncompetitively, to go through a bidding process the same way construction jobs do now:
By requiring bids for those types of jobs, the city could ensure that the best candidates get the work and avoid the appearance of favoritism, said Crawford, a radiation oncologist by trade.
“You remove any problem of any possible conflicts,” he said.
Street repairs and other construction jobs are already bid out, as required by state law, and offered to the lowest qualified bidder. However, state law does not require competitive bidding for professional services.
No-bid contracts invite mischief and have enabled administrations of both political parties throughout the city's history (and it's a statewide thing, really) to amply reward their political friends in a way that is far under the radar of most voters. Requring bids for all city work would largely negate the negative effects of campaign contributions. If there is an open and honest bidding process, it doesn't matter whether the big contributors were trying to buy influence or not.
