ILNews

Court rules on privatization, public bidding

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today that state officials violated the law by not adhering to the public bidding process when privatizing a Fort Wayne development center two years ago.

In Anita Stuller, et al. v. Mitchell Daniels Jr., et al., 02A05-0601-CV-22, the court unanimously reversed and remanded the case to Allen Superior Judge Nancy Boyer with instructions to hold a hearing to determine if a preliminary injunction should be granted.

The 27-page opinion points out that Judge Boyer misinterpreted a state statute governing bidding processes when ruling it didn't apply to an agreement between the state's Family and Social Services Agency and a Pennsylvania-based healthcare company in managing the Fort Wayne State Developmental Center, which housed developmentally disabled adults.

Filed in December 2005 against Gov. Mitch Daniels, Family and Social Services Administration Secretary Mitch Roob, and a third FSSA employee, the suit contends that administration officials ignored a state law requiring bids for a public-private agreement. The complaint stemmed from action earlier that year when Indiana entered a $3 million contract for 18 months with Liberty Healthcare Corp. to manage the center.

An employee, Anita Stuller, and her union, AFSCME Council 62, filed suit to stop the takeover of the facility and require the state to go through a public bidding process before giving control of the center to a private firm. But later that month, Judge Boyer refused to grant the injunction after reading another law authorized the FSSA to use "any procedure it deemed appropriate to acquire Liberty's services."

If that holding stood, the appellate judges wrote that it would practically nullify the provisions of Indiana Code § 5-23-5 in dealing with public-private agreements. Therefore, the trial court's decision "goes against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances."

"In this sense, every operating agreement may feasibly contain a phrase or particular service which is better served by the unique qualifications of an outside vendor, thereby placing all contracts outside the purview of public-private agreements," Judge Patricia Riley wrote, joined by Judges Michael Barnes and Terry Crone. "Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we conclude the agreement is properly characterized as a public-private agreement, subject to the mandatory public bidding process."

As the FSSA committed a clear violation of the public bidding procedures, the plaintiffs-appellants suffered irreparable harm per se, according to the court. Touching on whether a preliminary injunction would serve public interest, the court noted the agreement could be as high as $95 million in taxpayer money and used that to reinforce its holding on I.C. 5-23 and the bidding process.

"An abandonment of these requirements would result in a situation where the government is encouraged to grant part of its public duties to private entities without any inquiry from the public," the opinion says. "While we do not object to the government turning to private companies in a desire to minimize costs and to enhance efficiency and flexibility, public oversight is nevertheless statutorily mandated for contracts falling within the realm of I.C. § 5-22."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT