Scoring integrity

Prefacing the following article by Honolulu Civil Beat, I'd note that Guam is not mentioned in the study by State Integrity org, nor any US Territory, which is a frightful shame. We'd all be interested, and we're all part of the US communal body.

Is the Public Procurement Process in Hawaii Effective?

The state got a B+, or 88 percent score for Procurement. Hawaii tied for 12th place with four other states: Rhode Island, California, Indiana and Tennessee. Iowa came in first while Maryland was last.

Hawaii scored a 100 percents for having laws addressing conflict of interest and competitive bidding. But Hawaii got a 0 percent for not having any prohibitions against sole sourcing or no-bid contracts.

Overall, the State Integrity Investigation ranked Hawaii 10th after Civil Beat reporters researched 330 “Corruption Risk Indicators” across 14 categories of government. (Click here to learn more about the methodology used for the project.)

Bottom line: This is another area in state government where what's written in the law doesn't always match what happens in reality on the ground. Every "in practice" score in this category scored a 50 percent or less.

The rest of the story, in great detail you will have to read, answers, or at least addresses the question, Is the Public Procurement Process Effective? It is full of useful tips for evaluating your own jurisdiction's procurement "integrity". Indeed, the State Integrity website contains a clickable page to look at the 50 states.

The Honolulu Civil Beat says it intends to print a different question each day, and the criteria used to come up with a score for each question. I hope I can remember to follow along. And I hope you follow again as well.