OCR Text |
Show To Did or not to Bid, that is the question? That's the question Beaver County Commissioners are probably asking themselves them-selves this week, and the answers don't come as easy as they used to, before the state legislators, due primarily to inflation, in-flation, started relaxing bid requirements. Not many years ago, almost every purchase was made by sealed bid. In theory this not only brings all purchases to the public eye, but supposedly will get the lowest possible price for the equipment equip-ment or project. The problem Is that in order to call for sealed bids, specifications must be written so that all bidders will be bidding on the same or equivalent equipment or material. That's fine in areas which have sufficient suf-ficient outlets so that competitive bids can be made. In Utah, where often there is only one firm that can meet the specifications, speci-fications, other bidders must substitute with similar, but often not the same equipment. equip-ment. Sometimes It will serve the purpose fine, but often it is not as good , so the low bid may not be the best bid. Counties and municipalities faced with this compromise, must either accept this low bid, which may purchase equipment not quite satisfactory, or they must try to Justify the high bid to taxpayers as equipment being superior enough to warrant war-rant the additional expenditure. Legislators not only in Utah, but elsewhere else-where have relaxed the bidding procedures in recent years, to allow more dollar purchases pur-chases without bidding. We're told that in Utah it is not necessary to bid equipment regardless of cost. However, projects over $40,000 must be bid. The recent legislature considered raising that limit to $80,000, but it did not pass. Many states used to require Counties and Cities to publish all disbursements on a monthly basis, so taxpayers could know where their money was being spent. Some still do. Utah used to require this once a year, but about four years ago, allowed a summary financial statement be published, pub-lished, which tells the story in general, but requires detailed research to find out exactly ex-actly where each dollar went. Arguments for permitting this deceptive decep-tive summary statement are: nobody reads it anyway; cost of printing; arid we expect an effort to take government out of the public eye to some degree. What you don't know won't hurt you but it can cost you. Public Pub-lic officials often would rather publish a conglomerate of purchases under a title of capital Improvement than to be more specific about each individual purchase. The Utah Open Meetings law provides that the media must be notified of all meetings, and an agenda provided. However, it does not provide payment for publishing this information, so it Is left to the publisher to decide if it is important enough to provide free space. He must decide if his readers will be sufficiently interested to warrant the space, he must donate. So, often publishers don't publish these agendas, giving the space to articles that have a wider readership. This does not mean that the public is not informed, at least after the fact, because, If the meeting is of general importance, most media will cover it and report the action taken in a news story. Often, its too late for you to have any imput, but at least you know, thanks to a generous press. It should be noted that with few exceptions, meetings are open to the public. But few people will sit all day in a meeting just to see what's going on. They, if they come at all, take up their pet subject, then get out fast, and back to something more enjoyable. So a dilemma exists. Should Commissioners Commis-sioners or Councilmen draw up specifications speci-fications and call for sealed bids on all m ajor purchases, or should they proceed to make the best deal they can for the equipment they want? True, there are expenses involved In drawing specifications and advertising for bids. However, this will generally be offset by lower prices brought about by competitive bidding. We advocate the bid procedure on all major purchases. Sealed bids provide a legitimate defense for board actions. Members Mem-bers are not likely to be accused of skullduggery skull-duggery if sealed bids are opened In public meetings. For their own protection, and to ward off criticism, members would be well advised to call for bids. We also believe that financial statements state-ments should be published in detail, with all explanations and addendums. The summary statements now being published require the explanation of an auditor and even then they are difficult to comprehend. We also believe that notices of public meetings should be paid for and not left to the dis -cretion of publishers. In most Instances local government bodies have been cooperative with the COUNTY NEWS. There have been few serious breaches of the Open Meetings Meet-ings Law. The law itself is in our opinion opin-ion too stringent in several areas, particularly par-ticularly on government bodies that meet only once or twice a month. In the areas listed above, we believe the laws fall short of providing the citizenry with adequate ade-quate notification and details of local government operation. "Red" |