Washblog

Fearey's $100,000 contract with the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District (the public board that manages the stadium) is a slap to the voters who are still paying off the stadium. The Mariners PFD was created to watchdog the public's investment. But it seems someone should be watchdogging them.

Public contracts over a certain amount are typically put out to a competitive bid. For example, rules dictate that the state must bid out any contract over $43,000. The city must bid out any contract over $41,000. And the Public Stadium Authority, the public agency that runs Qwest Field, adopted the same rules as King County, which must bid out any contract over $25,000.

However, as an e-mail from Mariners PFD board member Joan Enticknap says: "I think Greg [Smith, a developer who wants to build around Safeco Field] is counting on us being a typical public agency, which won't react...." Enticknap's agency, funded by a portion of the Safeco sales, restaurant, car rental, and admission tax package (with a seven-member board that's appointed by the King County Executive and the governor), definitely didn't act like a typical agency. Indeed, according to state law governing PFDs, unless you've got an "emergency" on your hands, contracts over $35,000 must be put out to the competitive bid process.

Right now, PFD directors are appointed positions, so they're not really held accountable for their actions. They're not beholden to voters, and since the press (outside of the Stranger) doesn't really look at what they're doing, they're left to act a lot less like a public agency. Last time I wrote about this, I was talking less about specifics, and more about what the Sonics could do to improve their now dead chances of winning support in the legislature.

Here are my suggestions from back then for reforming the PFDs in our state:

1. Consider direct elections. Special districts like a Port and a Public Utility District operate in the public eye and are held accountable by elections. If we're going to sink $300 million into just building a new public facility (not even maintaining it) wouldn't direct accountability be a good idea?

2. If not direct elections, what about appointing members of local governments to the board, in the same way that the Sound Transit board or our LOTT board down here in Thurston County works. If not directly to the voters, the PFD board would at least be directly accountable to elected officials who live in the communities who are supposed to benefit from the new facility.

Any other ideas?