Dean Mills is Dean of the University of Missouri School of Journalism and publisher of the Missourian.
For 98 years, the Columbia Daily Tribune has competed fiercely but fairly against its crosstown rival, the Columbia Missourian, the one-of-a-kind community newspaper that serves as a training and research laboratory for the Missouri School of Journalism. Indeed, when the Missourian’s aging press or other technology has broken down, the Tribune has printed the Missourian for a day or two — at a fair market price.
So the story in Thursday’s Tribune about the Missourian’s search for a private partner in its printing and some of its advertising strategies was a particularly disappointing departure from that tradition of honorable rivalry. Based on a misunderstanding of MU bidding procedures, the story leaps to the strange conclusion that the bidding process was “rigged.”
The story is based on two key false assumptions: (1) that it is a violation of university policy to have exploratory discussions with a potential business partner and (2) that the university has only one approach to signing contracts with outside vendors.
The facts:
(1) The Missourian Publishing Association is an independent corporation governed by a board of directors. In 1997, the association signed a contract with the university in which the association agreed to provide teaching services to the university in return for a laboratory support fee to be paid to the association by the university. Other teaching laboratories for the Journalism School are KBIA/91.3 FM and KOMU/Channel 8. This unique, hands-on training provides the first-rate professional education that explains in large part why the Missouri School of Journalism is consistently ranked first in the country in more surveys than any other school.
(2) It is important to note that the Missourian Publishing Association is a business and so must be cognizant of all business practices, including revenues and operating costs.
(3) Because of the need to increase revenue for the association, Dan Potter, the general manager of the Missourian, had for several months informally explored the possibilities of partnering with a non-Columbia newspaper in some joint advertising strategies in connection with printing the Missourian. (This is a common-sense and legitimate procedure widely accepted by the business community. In fact, the Missourian for years had informal discussions with the Tribune about possible joint advertising, printing and distribution partnerships. However, an agreement did not materialize because the Tribune did not offer a feasible business option for the Missourian.)
(4) When Potter’s discussions with the out-of-town newspaper showed promise, Potter suggested a sole-source contract — the approach used by the university when only one vendor is able to provide the service or product sought. That seemed a logical approach, given that a key part of the partnership assumed collaboration in both advertising and printing, and only a vendor close to the Missourian’s market and distribution area could deliver.
(5) When university procurement staff reviewed the idea, they suggested that, in order to make sure potential vendors were not being excluded, the Missourian should use, instead of a sole-source contract approach, a Request for Proposals, another standard purchasing procedure. (RFPs are used when there is more than one potential vendor, but only a few.)
(6) At that point, of course, Potter ceased all conversations with the other newspaper, to avoid unfair treatment of any of the now three potential bidders.
(7) The RFPs were sent to the three possible vendors, including the Tribune, that seemed capable of meeting the criteria cited by the Missourian — the ability to print the newspaper as well as to enter into an advertising strategy that would benefit both newspapers.
(8) The Tribune objected strongly to combining the advertising collaboration with the printing contract, arguing that the bid was restrictive and favored the out-of-town newspaper. (Ironically, another out-of-town newspaper expressed to the university its concerns that the proposal favored the Tribune.)
(9) The Tribune also requested, under the Missouri Sunshine Law, records that were generated when the Missourian was — quite legitimately — in discussions in anticipation of a sole-source contract. We of course released the relevant e-mails. We didn’t anticipate that they’d be used to suggest, falsely, that the Missourian had been in contact with the out-of-town newspaper during a proposal process involving more than one possible vendor.
(10) Because of the Tribune’s objections to the original RFP, university procurement staff members have been working with the Missourian to amend the RFP so that it will ask for bids on only printing the newspaper.
In sum: the Missourian Publishing Association, in an effort to increase its revenue and to continue its primary mission of providing a teaching laboratory for journalism students, had discussions with a potential partner, not unlike the discussions that had gone on for years with the Tribune — except that these showed real promise of being of financial help to the Missourian. These discussions were legitimate according to university policy. There was no unfair treatment of the Tribune. To the contrary, both the Missourian Publishing Association and the university have made every effort to accommodate the Tribune’s demands, to the potential financial detriment of the Missourian.
Our hope now is that, if we do reach a contract with a vendor who can meet the Missourian’s printing needs, we can resume the historic tradition of friendly competition with our colleagues across town.