Lobbying and Large Local Government Contracts

One of the biggest problems with local government lobbyists is that they invariably have close contacts with those who run the city or county. So whenever they are involved in a matter, especially the bidding of large contracts, there is a strong appearance of impropriety, and people don't trust the bidding process.

This is why some local governments place a ban on the lobbying of government officials with respect to large contracts and developments. Phoenix is one local government that has done this, according to an article this week in the Arizona Republic.

But this hasn't stopped bidders for large Phoenix contracts from hiring lobbyists closely associated with the mayor and the council. This was the case with a $260 million contract for a train system at the airport, which was awarded last week. One bidder hired the mayor's sister's firm, as well as a lobbying firm led by the chair of campaigns for the mayor and a council member. The other bidder hired a firm led by the city's former firefighters union president, who is a close friend of and fundraiser for the mayor.

The mayor insists that he and the council were not lobbied. The stated purposes for hiring the lobbying firms were to guide the companies through the bidding process and to introduce the companies to airport officials, local contractors, chambers of commerce, etc.

But why lobbying firms? And why the mayor's sister, why a former local government union president? The appearance is that, at the very least, the companies were trying to make people who mattered think they had the support of the city's power centers. At the most, the appearance is that they were trying to get around the language of the lobbying laws, doing all the arguably legal lobbying they could.

Everyone emphasizes that the contract winner had the lowest bid. But everyone knows that the other most important thing about a bidding process is the specifications. He who most affects the specs can make himself the lowest bidder or keep out other possible bidders. Any lobbying that affects the writing of specs can do more damage than direct lobbying of elected officials. After all, the mayor and council don't select the winning bidder, they just confirm the choice of the city manager. But people who are close to the mayor and council can sometimes get special treatment when it comes to writing the specs.

Who knows what happened with the airport train system specs in Phoenix. But this is an issue that arises again and again in local governments, and it is usually dealt with by preventing any communication with those involved in the bidding process, including those who write the specs. But without any input from possible bidders, it can be difficult to write specs for a project such as this. So often, the best that can be done is to prevent bidders and their representatives from initating communication and to make as much as possible of the communication public.

This is a difficult but important area of local government ethics, but it is rarely discussed in the popular media, and even more rarely discussed openly and honestly by government officials. What can you do when a reformist mayor such as Phoenix's says things like:

I have had family members I've opposed on votes and family members that I've supported, and I just have to do the right thing for the city.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---