More openness, more oversight

Robins Mayor Ian Cullis won't back down.

Twice this year, Cullis vetoed measures approved by the Robins City Council awarding contracts to Snyder & Associates Inc. for engineering work. And twice, the council voted to override his vetoes.

The latest came last week, when the council voted 5-0 to sidestep Cullis' objections and award a $108,512 contract to Snyder for design and construction engineering work on a $1.6 million upgrade to East Main Street.

Cullis' quarrel is not with Snyder specifically. But what he does have a problem with is that the same firm that acts as the city engineer is also receiving contracts to work on city-funded projects.

No other firms need apply.

This isn't unusual in smaller Iowa towns. Many municipalities farm out city engineering duties to private firms, and then hire those firms for projects. And state law does not require competitive bidding for professional services such as engineering.

But as Robins grows rapidly, and infrastructure projects to keep up with that growth become more expensive, Cullis is right to raise the red flag. We support his call for more transparency and better oversight.

Although we understand the value of the nearly 20-year relationship between Robins and Snyder, we think city officials also have a crucial responsibility to citizens to prove that tax dollars are being spent in the most prudent way possible. We contend that relying on one company, and refusing to issue a request for proposals from others, fails to fulfill that responsibility. We also reject the argument that such exploration would unduly delay projects. Timeliness and transparency can coexist.

Snyder's experience in Robins certainly allows it to make a strong argument that it's the right firm for the job. It's also possible that the city could benefit from throwing open the hiring process to others.

Under the current scenario, however, taxpayers will never know.

There are also concerns about oversight. Snyder serves as city engineer after being rehired over a Cullis veto in January. But on street projects, the firm also serves as design engineer and construction engineer. So essentially, Snyder oversees its own work.

And if a dispute arises between a contractor and Snyder over an engineering decision, it would be up to the city engineer to settle it, which is, of course, Snyder.

The main arguments supporting this structure - other cities are doing it and Robins has been doing it for decades - are not compelling enough to override the need for greater transparency. Competition could benefit taxpayers, so local officials have an obligation to explore and present other options.

We hope Cullis continues his push for openness. Don't back down, Mr. Mayor.