OPINION: Using this tool would likely help get our money’s worth

We pay taxes to the government to provide us with basic services, whether they be education or roads, health care or national defense, safe food or safe towns. Getting good value for our money depends on political decisions, not on whether a postman is stealing Social Security checks (which they don’t do).

Those actions could be corrupt, such as when politicians give contracts to their friends or political buddies. They could be incompetent, such as when a political appointee makes a bad decision because the job is above his ability. Or these actions may amount to malfeasance, such as when politicians take bribes to line their own pockets. It also happens when ideology distorts the decision-making process.

In all cases, our money is not being used effectively for our benefit. In our system, government activity should benefit everyone, not the few.

In Coeur d’Alene, decisions about North Idaho College should be made to provide an “affordable, practical education,” for young people, not to satisfy the ideological leanings of a vociferous minority. The result: years of chaos creating unnecessary expenses, downgraded borrowing rates, favoritism in hiring and possible loss of accreditation.

“Multiple lawsuits over the board’s behavior, along with no-confidence votes from college employees and frequent turnover in leadership, also caught the eye of the institution’s accreditor.” (Source: Higher Ed Dive.)

In Boise, the process for awarding a large state contract for administration should produce the best system, not become an test case for corporate incompetence. The result: a dysfunctional system, administrative disruptions, and the possible loss of $117 million.

“More than a year into the launch of the state of Idaho’s $117 million new business system called Luma, state employees and evaluators describe a system that is inefficient, complicated, unreliable and continues to face internal security risks.” (Source: Idaho Capital Sun.)

In Lewiston, the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Regional Airport should be managed for the benefit of the local residents, not be embroiled in years of political infighting and misjudgment. The result: inconsistent flight schedules, controversial staff turnover and wasted financial support to United Airlines that then withdrew its service.

“Airport officials cited financial challenges as the primary reason for the termination. … The community could not meet the required minimum revenue guarantee (MRG) to sustain the service.” (Source: Big Country News.) In Moscow, the leasing to Home Depot of University of Idaho land to build a large box store should have considered strong community opposition and damage to locally owned Moscow businesses, not be taken for a short-sighted financial gain in contrast to the university’s role in its home base.

“Timothy Garrett called it a ‘disheartening oversight’ by UI to go forward with this proposal without first engaging with local businesses that have supported the school.” (Source: Lewiston Tribune.)

Governing entails the good management of the collective resources of our society. We do not elect our politicians to go to Boise or to our local officials to promote their personal views or line their pockets, but to represent us. And that means spending our money wisely and effectively. Could we use a new tool of government to answer the question: Will it work?

While businesses aim to make money, government aims to benefit society. Both work best if they have good management. A management tool that governments could use is an economic impact study (EIS) to measure the effectiveness of a new project or a major change in one. Businesses use such studies to decide whether to introduce a new product. The “products” of government are the services provided to people.

The great advantage of such a study is that you would have a clear and publicly available assessment of what happens when undertaking the project or change, if done before any decisions are taken. It cannot be rushed or done secretly, or you will have the blow-up such as the result from the hasty decision of the Idaho Board of Education in 2023 to go forward with the University of Idaho’s proposed acquisition of the for-profit, online University of Phoenix.

Public input is crucial, as it can stimulate challenges and/or support. Challenges will improve the project, and support will improve the possibility of its success. The study should be done for the public by an uninvolved group, free of jargon, easy to understand and readily available.

An economic impact study is straightforward and needn’t cost that much, especially in the age of internet research. Such a study would deal with questions of expense, continual costs, who pays, who does the project (staff and labor), transportation and economic impact on the community as a whole.

Most important: Who will benefit? (“Cui bono,” often cited and often ignored).

This is the crucial question. The answer should be the people in the region, not the politicians, not the contractor doing the work and not some distant corporation or ideology.

It comes down to whether members of the community were aware and informed. An EIS makes that more possible by clarifying what the decision is about and whether there is periodic follow up using the EIS as a baseline for review of progress and success.

If there had been a public EIS in Coeur d’Alene, would the public have earlier voted out the wayward politicians who caused the North Idaho College disaster?

If there had been a public EIS in Boise, would the Idaho Legislature have approved the dysfunctional administrative contract?

If there had been a public EIS in Lewiston, would the city council and county commission have spent more than $5 million on a fruitless subsidy to United Airlines?

If there had been a public EIS in Moscow, would the Idaho Board of Education have approved the leasing of valuable UI land to a very big Home Depot at a time when the company was closing similar stores around the country? What happens when Home Depot closes because of a too-small market area? Who ends up holding the bag for a bad corporate decision?

You could say that asking such questions is the job of our representatives. But since they are not asking questions, should we be doing so? And if so, should we have a public economic impact statement for major projects to know what to ask?

Nelson lives in Moscow where he volunteers for the Kenworthy Performing Arts Centre and supports libraries.