Bill Description: House Bill 656 would provide an expanded opportunity for judicial review of state purchasing decisions that use taxpayer funds. 

Rating: +1

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

House Bill 656 would amend sections 67-9229 and 67-9232, Idaho Code, to clarify and expand the process by which a vendor who has submitted a bid may seek judicial review of the state's purchasing decision. 

Under current law, the director of the Department of Administration makes the final decision of whether to allow or deny further review of a state purchasing decision.

Under the changes made by House Bill 656, a petition for judicial review can be filed within 28 days of the director's denial. The bill says, "The court shall affirm the decision rendered by the director unless the court finds that the administrator's determination of the lowest responsible bidder or the director's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions rendered are in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; made on unlawful procedure; not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; or arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."

It also says, "If the court does not affirm the decision rendered by the director, the proposed award of the contract or the award of the contract shall be deemed in violation of this chapter."

No bureaucrat should ever be so unaccountable that he is granted authority to deny an aggrieved party access to the courts to challenge any government action or decision. 

(+1)