<font color="#0033CC">OUR VIEW:</font> Moment of truth

For the Live Oak City Council it may come Feb. 9, at its next scheduled meeting. That's when the council will likely decide whether to open the OMI public works contract to competitive bidding, or once again renew the $2.4 million pact without bothering to look for a better deal.

Here's a little background.

Last April, after first voting to open the contract to bids, the council reversed course, citing time constraints (among other concerns). It was said to be too late in the game to begin advertising, so, in a 3-2 vote, the council gave OMI one more year, with the promise of competition in 2010.

We gave council members the benefit of the doubt (See "Our View - Bidding wars," in our online archives) and expressed confidence they'd do the right thing this time.

It's not at all clear they will.

Councilman Ed Rewis says the city needn't bother going out for bids. Council President Mark Stewart, who previously pledged to let other companies compete for a contract worth one-eighth of the city's budget, now reports he's "on the fence."

The closest we've come to an actual explanation involves supposed concern for workers' rights. It's said that if OMI isn't renewed, many of its employees - mostly local folks - will end up without pensions from the firm. (The pensions vest after five years.)

If that sounds familiar, it's because you've heard it before. This was one of the arguments used last spring to justify renewing OMI's contract for "just one more year." Now we're told there are other unvested workers as well, and OMI should be renewed yet again so they too can have pensions. And if new workers are hired during the term of that contract? Sounds like we've got a deal for life.

A related issue concerns fears a new company might bring in its own employees and do away with the local workforce altogether. The answer to that is easy enough - make continued employment of local folks a condition of any new contract.

Let's put this thing in perspective, folks. We're not asking the city to fire OMI. For all we know, they're the best in the business. We just want to do a little comparison shopping to be sure. What could be wrong with that?

Text Only