Paying About 40,000 Yen for a Cardboard Box of Retort Pouch Food — Citizens Outraged at Toyonaka City’s Appalling Financial Sense Over Corona Meal Delivery

An unprecedented lawsuit was filed in Toyonaka City, Osaka Prefecture. A citizen filed a lawsuit against Toyonaka City, claiming that the meal delivery service for medical treatment for the new coronavirus was too far from the actual cost of the service.

The plaintiff is Ryo Iwanaga, 48, a resident of Toyonaka City. Mr. Iwanaga, who usually works as a food delivery person, contracted a new type of coronavirus last July. He felt uncomfortable about the contents of the food delivered to him at that time, and filed a request for information disclosure with the city.

The disclosed documents revealed that the city paid 39,000 yen to a vendor under a negotiated contract (a contract in which a specific vendor is selected without bidding) for a product that would have cost less than 10,000 yen, even including delivery charges.

With this retort rice and the retort ingredients for the rice bowl, the actual cost is 1,870 yen.

Mr. Iwanaga sighs in sorrow when interviewed by FRIDAY Digital.

“The first is that it is wrong to pay 1,870 yen for a product that would normally cost about 250 yen. Of course, the money is taxpayer money, but the city is adamant that there is no problem with the contract. Of the 500 million yen paid to one vendor under a negotiated contract, 350 million yen is considered to be overpayment. Another point is the reason why the city decided to enter into a negotiated contract with the contractor. In the documents released to the public, the city makes extensive use of negotiated contracts, but we do not know the reason for this. I wanted many people to know about Toyonaka City’s overly sloppy financial practices, so I have been sending out messages via SNS and other means.”

Since last July, Mr. Iwanaga has continued to make inquiries to the city, but has not received a satisfactory response. In March of this year, he launched a lawsuit against the city, “demanding that the city file a civil suit against the three companies that execute the negotiated contracts, demanding that the city refund the difference.”

According to Mr. Iwanaga, the disclosed documents reveal several puzzling points.

“Not only the contents of the products, but also the cost of gasoline for delivery, which is as high as 3,200 yen for 20 km per day,” he said. Furthermore, the financial accounting treatment is also too small by any amount, with 20 million yen for the six months from April, despite the fact that 200 million yen was spent from February to March of last year. It is also inexplicable that at the end of March of last year, all the staff in charge of the health center were replaced, except for the director. The fact that they initially paid a larger amount, but then lowered the amount, makes us wonder if there was collusion with the contractor. In order to get a deeper understanding of the situation, we filed a request for an audit of the residents, but the request was denied. I am also angry that such sloppy “bureaucratic work” can be seen everywhere.

The issue has also come up at city council meetings. Koichiro Kanbara, 44, a member of the Toyonaka City Council, who asked about this issue at a city council meeting last September, prefaced his answer with the following: ” Knowing the tight situation at the health center, it is difficult to make a decision based on the same standards as under normal circumstances.

Considering the situation at the health center at the time, we can judge that a negotiated contract is appropriate in some respects. On the other hand, regarding the discrepancy between product contents and fees, it may be that the field could not afford it at all, but I think it is undeniable that there was a lack of awareness of the cost aspect. Now that an administrative lawsuit has been filed, we will once again be closely watching the judicial decision.”

So, how does the city view the situation? When we sent a written question to the Health and Prevention Division of Toyonaka City regarding the history of the voluntary contract and the content of the meal delivery service, we received the following response.

When we started the meal delivery service, we conducted a bidding process, but only one company responded to the bid, and at the time of contract renewal, there was no other company that responded that they could accept the contract.

Regarding the details of the delivery fees, he said, “We cannot state the appropriateness of the amount because there is a high possibility of disputes,” and then replied, “The meal delivery service is related to our city.”

The meal delivery service is being provided after consultation with the city’s relevant officials. If we receive a complaint from the court in the future, we will examine the contents of the complaint carefully, and the city will respond to it sincerely.

Mr. Iwanaga was very angry at the city’s response.

Even in times of emergency, it is unthinkable for the private sector to use taxpayers’ money to purchase 500 million yen worth of items that cost about 250 yen for 1,870 yen. I would have hoped that the company would have accepted the point of view of the blatant documentary irregularities even if they were not based on an audit request or a lawsuit by the residents, and at the very least, request a refund as a human error. I don’t understand the nerve of the officials who can say with a nonchalant face, ‘ there is no problem,’ either.

In recent years, public funds have come under scrutiny for corruption in the Olympic Games and for accounting irregularities in the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s women’s support program. The judicial decision on the lawsuit filed against Toyonaka City is also likely to attract a lot of attention.