At last Monday's (Aug. 10) Springfield City Council meeting, the council unanimously voted to place four amendments to the city's charter on the November ballot.
Springfield voters should take a hard look at Question 3 before giving City Council broader control over the rules governing public purchasing.
The city describes the proposal as modernization and efficiency. But the actual ballot language would authorize City Council to “fully establish purchasing by ordinance, including the organizational structure, thresholds, and types.”
That is more than an administrative update. It is a transfer of authority.
Rules contained in Springfield’s charter cannot simply be changed by City Council. Charter changes require approval of the voters. Rules established
by ordinance can be changed later by a future Council without another public vote.
Question 3 does preserve competitive procurement requirements and extends them to additional purchasing methods. But that does not eliminate the concern.
Purchasing thresholds, purchasing types, organizational structure and approval authority are part of what determines how competitive procurement actually works. They can affect when formal bidding is required, who exercises purchasing authority, how purchases are reviewed and what level of oversight applies. If Question 3 passes, future councils could potentially change those details by ordinance without returning to the voters.
That creates an obvious question: What prevents a future council from raising purchasing thresholds, expanding purchasing categories or restructuring the process in ways that reduce meaningful competition, centralized review or other safeguards?
That does not mean abuse will occur. It means the charter should be written with the possibility of future abuse in mind.
Good government is not built on trusting whoever happens to hold office today. It is built on rules strong enough to protect taxpayers regardless of who holds office tomorrow.
If Springfield’s current purchasing system is outdated, city officials should identify exactly what is broken, exactly what authority must be transferred and exactly what safeguards will remain. “Efficiency” is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to move important controls from a voter-approved charter into ordinances that City Council can later change on its own.
The central question is simple: Why should voters surrender control over purchasing rules they currently control through the Charter?
Just last week, Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected Amendment 4, a proposed change to the state constitution that would have altered the rules governing citizens’ ability to amend their own constitution. More than 80% voted "no." Question 3 is not the same proposal, but the principle is worth remembering.
Missouri voters just sent government a powerful message: When officials ask citizens to surrender control over the rules that govern them, the burden is on government to prove why that transfer is necessary.
Springfield City Hall should listen.
The charter belongs to the people. Before voters give City Council authority they may never again directly control, they deserve a clear explanation of what power is being transferred, what safeguards could be changed in the future, and why giving up that control is in the public’s best interest.
Kevin Mueller lives in Springfield.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Springfield voters should think hard before changing charter | Opinion
