|
Editorial: A lesson in transparency
Op-Ed · June 09, 2016
When we heard the Iowa Educators Consortium sent to West Branch Community Schools only one bid for Chromebooks worth more than $140,000, we were surprised. They received more than one bid, but only passed one along.
School board member Mike Owen had a stronger word for it: “Appalling.”
But let’s put Owen’s comment in its full context.
The IEC determined a $141,000 bid for 560 Chromebooks was the best deal for West Branch schools, and it turned out the board, eventually, agreed.
But that’s not transparency, and the school board’s eventual agreement — after other bid were sent over — was not proof that the IEC got it right.
The bidding process is not just a matter of finding the lowest price, it’s finding the best deal. And transparency is how the taxpayers — who ultimately pay the bill — can determine if the government is really getting the best deal.
In the case of these laptops, the school district not only wanted laptops, but software and warranties as well.
But West Branch’s school board, in the past, has also considered reliability and customer service and, all other things being equal, prefers buying local. We frequently hear board members ask the administration how well a vendor worked with staff the previous year and how well they responded to problems. Board members have even chosen slightly higher bids from local companies because they know the company has shown a strong interest in community growth, or quality of living, or quality of education.
How can any of that appear objectively in a bid?
In this example of laptops, we have no local bidders, but the IEC is not the one making the choice, it is the local school board. With only one bid, how can the local school board members answer taxpayers when they ask, “Did you get a good deal?”
A decision made in ignorance — with little to no point of reference — is foolish. And even if you are proved right later, it only makes you lucky — not smart, not thoughtful, and certainly not worthy of voter support in the next election.
That leads to the the second point: The IEC ought to know better.
The IEC is part of the Heartland Area Education Agency, a government agency — a public agency where the default setting for government records is “open” with only a few exceptions.
The school board tabled the laptop decision until the IEC sent over all the bids it received. At that second meeting, Superintendent Kevin Hatfield told the school board that the runner-up bids are only provided upon request.
This is where Owen became, understandably, dumbfounded.
“Are there no other school districts asking for this extra information?” he asked the superintendent. “That is appalling.”
He has a very strong point.
The fact that the IEC requires a special request from an elected body for all available information — not just a select piece — on such a high-dollar purchase suggests that the IEC does not understand transparency, and, further, that the other schools which deal with the IEC do not practice much transparency themselves.
Either that, or both the IEC and those other school boards put way too much trust in the IEC’s abilities to make good decisions.
“The Consortium should not be making this difficult,” Owen said, turning to give a new directive to the superintendent. “Forward that concern on to them. This is a basic form of transparency.”
Well said.
Editor's note: This editorial was corrected June 30 to remove two references to iPads being bid by the Iowa Educators Consortium. The IEC only bid for Chromebooks. Also, but removing the iPad references, the amount bid was reduced from $200,000 to $140,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
