The City Council of Atlanta is not under any obligation, either expressed or implied, to take the suggestions of the public into account. Contracting procedures are already in place to guide the whole process and ensure accountability.
In 2019, two different companies were competing for a lucrative contract to manage Atlanta's tennis courts for the next five years. Universal Tennis Management (UTM) held management contracts with the city for ten years prior to this point, and they wanted to continue this arrangement. However, they were outbid by a different company called Agape. Alright, so we had a new tennis management company. Right?
Wrong. Atlanta City Council voted to cancel Agape's proposed contract in 2020, before it had been accepted. This is after UTM launched an all-out campaign on social media designed to influence the Councilmembers' votes. There were online petitions to sign in support of UTM, and the Bitsy Grant Tennis Center had a similar petition to sign in person. So the contract was up for grabs again.
Agape won the contract this time as well. Atlanta City Council was supposed to vote on it at their December 7th meeting, but their vote was delayed by a day because they had to listen to 432 public comments, which lasted a total of eight hours and 53 minutes. Most of these comments had to do with the tennis management contract. Some were in support of Agape, but public sentiment leaned heavily towards UTM.
Once again, Atlanta City Council voted to reject Agape's proposal.
It's important for City Councilmembers to listen to the public's input, because this is a good way to tell which issues are most important to the public. But their votes should not be overly influenced by the whims of the populace. They were hired to do a job, which is running the city.
Involving the public to such a degree is the same thing as disregarding the procurement process and ignoring its recommendations. When the public is wrapped up in the procurement process, it goes against the anti-lobbying provision which was started by the City’s legal counsel in the August 25th Human Services and Community Development meeting. Allowing the public to have so much influence creates the potential for politics in the procurement process, which should not be the case.
Agape Owner and CEO Amy Pazahanick protested the City Council's decision and asked them to repeat the process but this time, to follow the procurement rules that are in place. "This is setting a horrible precedent for the city of Atlanta and those that wish to do business with the city," she said. This scenario raises a few questions: what is the importance of the procurement rules, and does public opinion supersede these rules?
Disregarding procurement laws is an offense that can be prosecuted in a court of #law. Involving the public in the process made it impossible to follow procedures. Allowing public commentary to take over City Council meetings is not a good thing, because it leads to decreased productivity and therefore less services being put in place for the community. Even if the City decides to manage the facilities on their own, they don't know how to do so effectively. A Milltown resident told the council, "the City of Atlanta does not have the expertise to run tennis facilities. They don't understand what tennis players expect."
The procurement process does not leave much room for the council to share their decisions with the public. Public opinion is only based on what little information people are able to gather about the companies. If Atlanta City Council decides to factor in public view of the companies before awarding bids, it is not only unlawful, but also foolish. The Councilmembers are hired to make an informed decision on which companies should receive contracts, and they should only vote on companies who practice compliance with the procurement procedures that are in place. It should be based on each applicant's merits and visions for the future, not on the public's emotional whims.
