News Field of Schemes
posted by on May 9 at 15:02 PM
I’ve got a story coming out in today’s paper that raises legal questions about the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Facilities District (PFD). This is the public and publicly funded entity, with a board appointed by the governor and KC Exec, that is charged with overseeing the tenant at Safeco Field—the Mariners.
Given the huge public investment in Safeco Field—a $520 million construction budget funded with public bonds that are being paid off with local taxes—it makes sense to have a public body monitoring the situation.
However, as today’s story points out, maybe somebody should be watchdogging the watchdogs. The Mariners PFD awarded a $100,000 lobbying contract to a local consultant (The Fearey Group) without an open, competitive bid process.
Typically—as with the state, city, county, and the Seahawks public watchdog— awarding contracts over $25,000 and/or around $40,000 depending on the agency, requires an open public bid.
The Mariners PFD told me they wrote their own rules and awarding the $100K contract without a bid (it happened in a week’s time) was kosher.
I’m not a lawyer, but according to state law governing PFDs, the contract actually seems inappropriate.
I say all this in my article, but I didn’t have the space to quote the state law.
God bless, Slog.
Here are the state rules governing PFDs.
Here is the cite within the PFD rules that directs you to the details regulating contracts.
And here and here are those details.
(Oh, and here, according to my managing editor, is something else you’ll need to make it through these rules and this post.)
Meanwhile, here are the Cliffs Notes: The only time you don’t have to do an open public bid—or as the state describes it, “formal sealed, electronic, or web-based competitive bidding”—is when there’s an “emergency” or when the purchase isn’t over $35,000.
As I said, the Mariners PFD assured me that awarding a $100,000 contract without a competitive bidding process jibed with the rules. So, my article is a bit of a he said/she said… or more accurately: a he said/state rules said.
Weirdly, I had to do a public-records request to actually take a look at the Mariners PFD procurement rules. One board member I talked to didn’t even know if there were any rules. (The city, state, and county happily directed me to their rules over the phone.)
Anyway, I’m supposed to be getting a look at the Mariners PFD rules today.
The team is funded and run by a bunch of elderly caucasian egomaniacs, who serve the fiscal will of an even bigger Japanese egomaniac.
If they broke the law, it, while dismaying, wouldn't surprise me.
I don't see a cite to 36.100.190 in the body of 36.100.010; rather the later incorporates the severability provision of the former.
I would say the PFD is "hiring a service" w/in the meaning of .010(5), not entering into a purchase or sale contract w/in the meaning of 43.19.1906.
Further, 43.19.1906 begins "insofar as practicable" ... and a court could drive a truck through that kind of language. Esp. where you're talking about hiring an agent as against building a structure.
ln 1 should read "rather the former incorporates the the severability provisions of the latter."
This story, too, was already in the Times, two Saturdays ago - after it was all laid out in a Weakly blog a week earlier. Here's the link:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/blogs/dailyweekly/2007/04/safecos_views.php
At least you scooped the other members of your staff, anyway.
Way to do the bidding of the assholes that want to ruin our views Josh.
Blondie @4,
Neither The Seattle Times story nor the Weekly blog reported that the $100K contract runs up against state contracting rules.
Young and Anderson are both top flight reporters. I don't know why neither reporter explored that issue.
That's the issue I was interested in.
How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?
How about posting the Fearey contract so we can read what they're doing for $100k?
Josh,
The other reporters didn't pick up the contract because it's not an issue. 9x @2 is right that the PFD is hiring a service or entering into a consulting contract. These have much more flexible rules than purchasing goods.
A veteran government reporter knows that.
That's correct - no public bid needed for those deals. The PFD's attorneys, Preston Gates, cleared that ahead of time, and you should have checked with them. The contract is also for UP TO $100,000 - meaning the firm could earn much less. As fan and critic of the PFD/Mariners, I'm familiar with their operations - and the story is really about the battle over the views.
I just read your story and it's wrong and should be corrected. You say a public bid is required, and it isn't - something you might have learned if you called someone who knows about these deals (try the state auditor). As for that "slap to the voters" ("the Mariners PFD was created to watchdog the public's investment. But it seems someone should be watchdogging them"),that's exactly what the PFD is trying to do, rightly or wrongly, in preserving the investment in stadium views for the public. But then we know how a few niggling facts can ruin a good story.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).