MARIANNE MATHER / BEACON NEWS
Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner announces the new location for the Aurora police department headquarters March 28, 2006, at a press conference at the future location. Three companies that have contributed to Weisner's campaign will benefit from contracts related to the facility's construction.
BY DAVE PARRO
A proposed pay-to-play bill that unanimously passed the state House would forbid businesses with more than $25,000 in state contracts from making campaign contributions to officeholders awarding the contracts. What if the same standards were applied to local elected officials?
House Bill 1 is now in the Senate awaiting consideration. In addition to the $25,000 threshold, the legislation would also require that each state contract bid or offer in excess of $10,000 annual value be accompanied by a disclosure of the bidder's political contributions to the executive branch constitutional officer responsible for awarding the contract.
Should the same standards apply to our local elected officials when handing out city contracts? A quick look at contributions to Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner, for example, reveals that several well-know local firms that often get public contracts have made donations to his campaign since 2003. Several of them will benefit from the planned police station on Indian Trail.
In January, R.C. Wegman Construction received a $515,000 contract to build an adjacent training and storage
facility and a parking deck for the new station. Company president Carl Wegman has contributed $415 to Weisner's campaign. Local firms Engineering Enterprises ($5,160 in donations) and Cordogan Clark and Associates ($8,104) will both benefit from the police station construction as subcontractors for architect McClaren, Wilson and Lawrie of Arizona, which will receive 7.25 percent of the final construction costs on the estimated $60 million facility.
In another example, Walter E. Deuchler Associates has donated $1,400 to Weisner's campaign. Two of the company's most recent city of Aurora contracts include $44,500 for engineering work to McCarty Park improvements earlier this year and $596,000 last year to design new sewer and stormwater infrastructure along River Street.
Weisner should be aware that the perception of impropriety often trumps reality. He and all other Aurora officials should deny contributions, no matter how small, from companies doing business with the city. The City Council should also consider its own ordinance banning such conflicts of interest.
And the Senate should move quickly to approve HB1, which passed the House 116-0.
You've left out an important piece of information. Were the campaign contributions prior to Mayor Weisner being elected or after. Please provide the dates those contributions were made, that would be helpful. I only mention this because he did not hold any public office prior to being elected Mayor. Prior to being elected he would not know what projects would be approved and whom would be bidding on them. So contributions prior to being elected in this case are moot. With that being said I agree that once in office and a new campaign is at hand then the "pay-to-play" bill should come into effect for any incumbent running for public office. Another important piece of information that you also elected to leave out is the fact that Mayor Weisner does not alone decide who receives contracts. The City Council members along with the Mayor make those decisions.
Per Wes' request at 1:45 p.m.:
Cordogan donations: 11/16/04, 7/21/04, 10/4/03, 3/17/05, 3/31/05, 2/16/05, 10/1/05, 9/17/06
Engineering Enterprises: 7/7/03, 10/19/03, 9/7/04, 11/18/04, 3/24/05, 2/15/05, 7/24/05, 6/8/06, 10/1/06, 10/1/06
Deuchler: 7/12/05, 6/4/06
Wegman: 11/3/04, 3/14/05
You make a good point about donations made before being elected to office. Weisner was elected in April 2005, so many of the above donations would fall into that category. Not all of them, though.
And many of these companies regularly do business with the city, so candidates should know who holds contracts, even if they weren't the ones who voted on them. Keep in mind, too, that the pay-to-play bill doesn't just apply to candidates; it also requires companies bidding on contracts to disclose their campaign donations to elected officials.
Use this form to search who's giving money to which candidates. The contributor goes in the first name field, the candidate the second.
Contributions made to people before they are elected from people and companies that do large amounts of business with the ciy are precisely the problem or at least create the appearance of impropriety.
So under scenario set up by Wes a candidate not yet elected can take any amounts of contributions before elections. Is not that what happens now? Is that not the problem?
So Dave, why do you not put this story out where people might see it? Why not in the paper itself? Just maybe, if this kind of piece was written more often the Beacon would find itself better received.