August 20, 1999

Within one week, two decisions made at opposite ends of the greater Bay Area illustrated the basic schism in public policy between those who wish to effect social change in granting government contracts and those who seek simply to broker the best deal for taxpayers.

The state's Supreme Court ruled for the former by upholding a project labor agreement for an SFO expansion whereby contractors of major public construction must follow union practices for the greater good of the people. Apparently the "people" are comprised of the minority who belong to unions. One of the opponents--a non-union litigant--replied dryly that "the people of California are going to be paying more for their public works projects."

On the other side of this philosophical divide, a municipal contract provoked outrage here in Solano. Dixon Treasurer Gary Riddle took the lowest bid for city banking services in choosing Westamerica Bank over First Northern Bank, which has served Dixon for decades. While his decision went against the tradition of championing local business, the treasurer said he'd decided to resist the temptation "to allow our long-term relationship with First Northern Bank and their ties to the community to influence our objective evaluation of each proposal and which bank should be selected."

Here's the thing: If individuals or private organizations wish to engage in reciprocal business arrangements for good community relations and their own benefit, that's all well and good. However, the founders of America intended to free citizens from governmental intrusions, including cronyism and moralisms entering into providing basic public services.

Oddly enough, in trying to make a better deal for the city, Mr. Riddle's choice has been condemned as a "grab at power and a get-them-and-get-even attitude." I would be likelier to suspect a power grab when sweetheart deals and quid pro quo are implied by the paying of more taxpayer money for lesser services.

Now if Mr. Riddle has received or will receive any compensation from the firm he selected, that's a whole different story, but there has been no hint of collusion. Spending the peoples' money prudently is what he is supposed to do as a public employee and we should applaud a gutsy decision.

© 1999 Cynthia Hahn