Competitive bidding has been successfully employed world-wide to improve government service quality and reduce their cost. Thus, why not use competitive bidding to help reduce public servant payroll costs?

Years ago Jerry Yudelson of Portland, Oregon explored this idea in The Daily Journal of Commerce. His thoughts were prompted by his observations of the Portland School Board and its process for selecting a replacement for the then-retiring superintendent.

Matthew Prophet ran the Portland School system for over ten years. His salary was $135,000 — not including generous fringe benefits and a retirement plan. His replacement would come from qualified candidates, and the person chosen by the board would negotiate his own, likely higher, compensation package. This story is played out daily throughout the U.S.

Yudelson suggested public agencies put their high-paying jobs out for bid. Qualified finalists would bid for them, a reverse auction of sorts, with the lowest bidder earning the position. He figured many people would compete for Oregon’s high-level public service jobs, and would propose and accept a lower salary in exchange for the benefits of a Northwest lifestyle.

Undoubtedly, such an idea could work around the country. People wish to live in other places for a variety of personal reasons. Further, the bidding process could be applied to numerous public servant positions, not just the high-end salaried ones. Furthermore, though imperfect, competitive bidding for positions helps us establish some kind of market value of a given government job. This would be an improvement over how government salaries are typically determined.

If competitive bidding for services can help towns like Sandy Springs, Georgia (population 80,000), not increase taxes or raise fees for two years, imagine what competitive bidding could do for taxpayers when applied to individual positions. You can hear the auctioneer now, “Do I hear $55,000? 48.5 plus benefits? 46? Going once…”