EDITORIAL: Public deserves full disclosure

IBJ Staff
August 16, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

The city might be negotiating a sweet deal for Indianapolis taxpayers over the proposed $500 million justice center to be built across from the Indianapolis Zoo on the former site of General Motors’ stamping plant.

Or, taxpayers might be getting a bad deal.

There’s no way to know whether either is the case, because Mayor Ballard’s administration has kept secret details of its bidding process. That lack of transparency is bad government and violates the spirit of Indiana’s open-records law.

In April, the city issued a request for proposals for an all-inclusive project-management contract, in which a developer would design, build, finance, maintain and operate the new jail and courts facility. Of five companies that responded to the RFP, the city chose three finalists. Bids are due in October, and the City-County Council will likely vote on the arrangement early next year.

Ballard officials say such a package will provide a sparkling new building with improved city services—without a tax increase. They say the new contract—likely for a 35-year term—will cost the city no more than the annual $123 million it now spends to operate courts and corrections.

And they ask us to take their word for all of that. Everyone else is left to guess.

Putting terms of deals in the public realm while they’re still in the works isn’t just good government. It also can lead to better deals, as was the case in 2010 when public input led the Ballard administration to amend terms of its parking meter privatization.

The Mayor’s Office has cited no exception to state law that would explain why it has provided to justice center bidders but not to the public the maximum fee such a contract will require, why it refuses to release the RFP document, and why it won’t disclose calculations on what the project will cost taxpayers.

This is not the first, or even the second, time the Ballard administration has asked us to accept on trust that it is a wise steward of taxpayer funds. Examples include the development of the former Market Square Arena site, the Mass Ave fire station land swap, and the Broad Ripple parking garage and retail space at College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard.

An all-inclusive management contract might be the prudent move, and the justice center might not cost an extra taxpayer dime. Other cities have had mixed success with such arrangements in funding roads, and the model is largely untested on building projects. All the more reason taxpayers have the right to see and weigh the details of such an expensive, long-term commitment.

Trust is not an entitlement; it is earned. Transparency and respect for the law are the surest ways for the Ballard administration to earn it.•


To comment on this editorial, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.


  • Citizens Paid for the data how are they not entitled to the results?
    Transparency is the fuel that will enable us to make rational decisions and grow our city in the future. It is necessary for Public Trust and confidence in Government. In God we Trust - All others bring data! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr2XOIx4rng
  • Transparency & Accountability Lacking
    It appears to me that the city administration under Ballard has increasingly taken the attitude that "they know what is best" for the taxpayer. It as though they operate the city as a corporation, reporting to its high-roller supporters, rather than operating as a government organization accountable to the taxpayers and the city-county council. Ballard is setting himself and his administration up as a big target for any would-be challenger in the next mayoral election.
  • Why not cost SAVINGS??!!
    Come on IBJ staff--you've kicked in high gear the last couple years reporting what matters to tax payers. Keep it up! BUT, why are we settling on the story line that "no tax increase" and "will cost no more than...amount it spends now?" We must have TRANSPARENCY about the building costs and fees paid to consultants and builders, fees paid for ongoing management, AND we MUST have TRANSPARENCY about the land sale profits to the developer who is also seeking city assistance with the music venue, and TRANSPARENCY about why a new more efficient facility is not saving a significant percentage of annual operating costs compared to the current facilities. With a public supported music venue and a public supported justice center on the same site, why didn't the city just but the land, eliminate the mark-up for developers to save us that money, then issue the RFP for justice center and require the developer to pay cost for the land????

Post a comment to this story

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 IBJ 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

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ