12/04/01

WITH MORE facts now revealed, it's understandable why Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration didn't want to release records of their nefarious dealings on professional services contracts: It took months for a Mobile Register reporter to get hold of the records, but once he did, he found a pattern of behavior among state officials that suggests Alabama's government was for sale.

In particular, there's evidence that state business was used to strong-arm political contributions from companies and to reward political cronies.

If that's so, Alabama has been ill served. If that's not so, the governor, Finance Director Henry Mabry and other administration officials have a lot of explaining to do. Either way, an investigation by an independent agency would serve the public interest.

In the first two installments of an ongoing series of stories, the Register drew the tawdry picture of an administration that appears to use multimillion-dollar state contracts as political chattel.

Telling evidence, for example, is the fact that nine computer-services companies hired prominent Montgomery lobbyists to help them get state contracts. Contracts that should have been issued based on reputation, capability and cost were instead handed out to companies willing to play ball with the Siegelman administration.

Political donations and other less-clear political considerations seemed to have played a role in deciding which companies got contracts and which were dumped.

Among those that got lucrative contracts was Digital One, an inexperienced company that wasn't yet incorporated when Mr. Mabry and the governor's office ordered some state agencies to hire it or another newcomer, Tech Providers Inc. To do so, the agencies were forced to dump a company -- Advanced Systems Design Inc. -- that had served them well during the Fob James administration.

That's a sleazy way to do public business.

The evidence indicates that Gov. Siegelman and his chief aides politicized the granting of professional-services contracts when they took over state government. Mirroring a trend al ready revealed in the handling of other state contracts during Mr. Siegelman's administration, companies have found that political connections and contributions are part of doing business when Mr. Siegelman's in office.

To be fair, there's no evidence yet that the politicizing of the contract process has hurt state services. But if state employees weren't gagged by the Siegelman administration, who knows what they could tell? The ingredients are certainly present for expensive bumbling, if not disasters, when an inexperienced company is hired to replace a seasoned company because of politics. Complaints against the practice, found in memos between state agencies, attest to that fact.

Contracts for state work aren't the spoils of political victory, and it's shameful that the Siegelman administration has treated them as such.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to what extent Gov. Siegelman participated in these corrupting practices. But even if it was done without his blessing, as the state's chief executive, he is responsible.

Details of questionable dealings over state contracts have been seeping out for several months now. Yet, while the governor made a show this summer of proposing new rules and laws to prevent future abuses, he in fact has failed to take decisive steps to clean up his administration.

A comprehensive investigation by an independent agency should be commenced immediately to determine who traded contracts for political contributions or made other slimy deals, and the extent of Gov. Siegelman's involvement. If laws were broken, people should be indicted. If ethical duties were violated, people should be fired.

Ultimately, Gov. Siegelman's administration won't be judged by the pockets of corruption that may exist within it, but by what he does about the improprieties that are brought to his attention. So far, he has done little.

When it comes to the use of lobbyists by companies seeking state contracts, the Legislature should insist on full disclosure. It could accomplish that by requiring lobbyists who ply their trade at state agencies to register -- just like the lobbyists who work the Legislature have to.