Running In Place Gets Us Nowhere

The Spokane City Council recently sent some proposed City Charter amendments to the oblivion known as “needs further study by another committee one of these days.”

That’s too bad. One of the amendments would have opened the door to civil service reform and the privatization of city services. Privatization is a boon to governments all over the planet, as well as the people they serve and the taxpayers who finance them.

Numerous countries that have turned away from socialism are returning nationalized industries to private entrepreneurs. Here in the United States, states and cities are inviting competitive bids for contracts to perform selected government services.

Not in Washington state, though. Not in Spokane, either. A regrettable state law bars private contracting for work state agencies perform. The Spokane City Charter’s civil service process, coupled with the bargaining rights given the city employee unions, does the same.

A current proposal concerning handicapped parking tickets illustrates why it would be healthy for Spokane to allow privatization.

The proposal comes from Stuart Evey, a former vice president of Getty Oil Co. After struggling to find handicapped parking for his mother, who has a disability permit, Evey concluded that the city is not working hard enough to ticket people who illegally use the parking spaces. He proposes to form a business that would ticket cars that hog handicapped parking without a permit. The business would pay the city the amount of fine revenue the city received last year for this violation, plus 25 percent of whatever additional fine revenue the business generates. At $175 per ticket, this could add up.

Evey’s proposal wouldn’t cost the city a cent and it would increase city revenue. Under a well-drafted contract, the city could hold Evey’s firm accountable for its performance.

However, the city’s unions objected. So did its civil service bureaucrats and transportation departments, all of whom sensed a threat to their empires. The result might be a decision by the city to hire another ticket writer, in hopes the cost will be outweighed by revenues gained. But, due to the lesser incentive to work hard, enforcement under the city’s approach may not be as aggressive - or as beneficial to the disabled - as Evey’s would be.

Experience elsewhere shows that City Hall’s unions and bureaucratic turf defenders may not have as much to fear as they think. Indianapolis is a leader in privatization of city services and the people of Spokane would find its experience fascinating. For example:

That city’s street repair employees won competitive bidding to do their old job, but with 18 fewer supervisors. They figured out how to fill potholes and seal cracks with one truck instead of two, five workers instead of eight. Pothole patching costs fell 25 percent and sealing costs fell 60 percent.

A private contractor took over operation of Indianapolis sewage treatment, cutting costs 44 percent. Its employees, hired from the city, receive higher pay and benefits than before and are represented by the same union. Union grievances dropped from 38 to one and accidents fell 70 percent. Wastewater is cleaner.

Privatization trims bureaucracy and offers a direct reward to employees who work harder, smarter and more efficiently. Taxpayers enjoy lower cost and better service. Credibility of government soars.

Does this seem relevant, Spokane?

Next question: Whose interests do City Hall’s foot-draggers represent? , DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board