Steve Fenner, a Springfield attorney and military veteran, recently penned an article for the Springfield News-Leader about the suspicious circumstances surrounding fee office bidding. When outside scrutiny (from Chad Livengood) revealed that Alternative Opportunities had made ten illegitimate bids (which all won), the DoR had no choice but to invalidate them.
When Jay Nixon signed the bidding process into law, few expected how badly it would turn out.
Alternative Opportunities has had tremendous success in the bidding process, and so have other well-connected Democrats. With a brand new 'competitive bidding process' that was supposedly blind to political ties, it's hard to explain how virtually every lucrative fee offices went to Nixon's cronies.
Scratch that, it’s actually really easy to explain. The system was tampered with, and in the rush to distribute fee offices they got sloppy. This isn't the first time that oversights have mysteriously favored major Nixon donors. James Ryan Williams won the Gladstone fee office because of inconsistencies in the scoring process.
Now, Fenner is asking important questions that deserve answers:
At the beginning of Gov. Jay Nixon's term, quite an issue was made about changing the way contracts to manage license offices were awarded. Previously, the governor made the choice. This was changed to a bidding process. Under the new "impartial" system, big contributors to Nixon's campaign received lucrative license offices. It appears that the practice of awarding contracts to supporters is unchanged, but the governor has applied a veneer of process intended to decrease his responsibility.
It is important to be a careful steward of taxpayer money. After researching this matter, I see questions that need to be answered.
Questions for the Department of Revenue
1. Why rebid? Isn't the normal state procedure to award the contract to the second qualified applicant when the leading applicant is disqualified?
2. Should the DOR rebid offices every time a bidder is disqualified? If so, why wasn't the Joplin office rebid sooner?
3. How was the point system used to determine the winning bid established? Does it give an advantage to contributors to the governor's campaign? Does the DOR receive any input from the governor's office when making its decision?
4. When is a "Best and Final Offer" really a best and final offer? Why did applicants have to give a best and final offer multiple times for a number of offices, often offices that AO was awarded?
Questions for Alternative Opportunities
AO provides some great services, such as the Carol Jones Recovery Center and Lakes Country Resource Centers. Just because this organization does some good works does not mean it and those who run it are above scrutiny. Marilyn Nolan, AO's CEO, was a member of Nixon's Transition team and a donor to his campaign. Tom and Bontiea Goss, AO's CFO and COO, also made large donations to Nixon's campaign.
1. What percentage of AO's income comes from government funding?
2. Would not having to pay employees out of license office fees give AO an unfair advantage? Are employees at AO running license offices being paid with taxpayer money funneled through other AO businesses?
3. Was the $17 million top officers at AO made on the sale of W.D. Management a result of its affiliation with a not-for-profit? What about the 10-year exclusive contract to provide services to AO? A not-for-profit receives special tax status in part because of the good works it does. Should those running a not-for-profit be able to use it as a vehicle to enrich themselves personally?
These questions and others need to be answered fully to the taxpaying public's satisfaction. Transparency is essential. That is why I believe further investigation, perhaps by the state auditor, into this matter is warranted.
Comments