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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT