Gov. Jay Nixon halts $80 million long-term contract
A contract for $80 million that was signed by then-Gov. Matt Blunt shortly before he left office is being put on hold by Gov. Jay Nixon. The contract was to improve the state’s public safety radio infrastructure. Some lawmakers had questioned the process that led to the contract being awarded to Motorola, a company that at one time was represented by lobbyist Andy Blunt, the ex-governor’s brother.
Here’s AP’s quick take on it:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to improve the radio system used by emergency responders has been halted by Gov. Jay Nixon.
Former officials in Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration say a contract worth more than $80 million had been awarded to Motorola shortly Blunt left office Jan. 12.
Nixon spokesman Jack Cardetti said Tuesday that the new governor still believes an improved radio system is important. But Cardetti says the project is complex, lengthy and expensive and was put on hold as part of Nixon’s review of all long-term state contacts.
The project had been overseen by Jim Lundsted, the state’s chief interoperability officer. Lundsted said he retired last week after being told by Nixon’s administration that the state didn’t have the money for the project.
Breech of contract? Or can the state get out of contracts on a whim?
The lack of complete information in this commentary is breathtaking, to say the least. If you want a more well-rounded account of the facts, search for the original Associated Press article on the subject, which was posted on this website yesterday evening but is no longer present today. The truth is that this initiative was studied for around two years and bids were taken from various entities for the contract. The original study projected the costs around $170 million or more. The contract chosen was for less than half, because Motorola was able to share towers and bandwidth, cutting costs, and also was going to provide financing. The lack of interoperable communications between law enforcement and other emergency responders endangers the lives of citizens in an emergency, and the public needs to know the whole truth about this situation. This has been a problem for quite some time. That Mr. Messenger would post a factually deficient and arguably biased comment on the subject is disturbing and shows a lack of real concern for the well-being of Missourians. This is not some email disagreement. How are we to be sure that we’re getting the real facts on something that truly concerns our personal safety?