We'd be very happy to praise the proposed $40.6 million sale of iProvo to Broadweave Networks. It sounds promising. But a few loose questions are still dangling around.

A key element is an April 2007 request for proposals, which Mayor Lewis Billings says served as adequate notice that iProvo was for sale. The title of the RFP is as follows: "Requests for Proposals for Partnership Opportunities with Telecommunication Service Providers on the iProvo Network." The text of the document defines those "opportunities" as ways "to provide telecommunications services and business opportunities on the iProvo Network."

The mayor says that this language was perfectly understandable as inviting bids for a purchase. He offers as proof his assertion that purchase offers from at least a couple of business entities came in.

But this, in turn, raises at least three more questions: Were the purported bidders hand-picked? How much did they bid? Was Broadweave's bid the best?

Let's not pussyfoot around: at best this RPF was vague. And it's fair to ask whether it was designed to be vague so as to allow a backroom sale to unfold. Or was the vague language only more recently "discovered" and applied as legal cover in a process that requires competitive bids?

Either scenario would be unfortunate. The sale of iProvo, given the network's controversial history, should be as open and transparent as possible.

It's true that the city wouldn't want to be seen as negotiating from a position of weakness. But would an unambiguous notice that the city would entertain offers be weakness? We don't think so. After all, the troubles of iProvo have not been kept secret. Everybody has known for years that a sale was one option the city could pursue.

Clarity about a possible sale is a strength, not a weakness. After all, if you want to sell a car, you don't mumble a few hints to friends. You advertise it in the classifieds, put a sign in the window, and do all you can to attract buyers. In this light, the vagueness of the city's RFP becomes harder to understand and defend.

Cities are required by law to put things like this out for competitive bidding. If statutory corners were cut, somebody might have grounds to challenge the sale in court. Pete Ashdown, CEO of XMission, an Internet service provider, contends that the bidding process wasn't really open. "The RFP was for providers on the network," Ashdown said. He said that his own efforts to get XMission onto iProvo had been repeatedly rebuffed.

Was the RFP legitimate? Basically the answer runs this way: If nobody challenges it, then it was legal by definition.

But was the secrecy really necessary? We're not convinced. Secret gambits have a tendency to erode faith in government. That would be an unfortunate bit of collateral damage if this process comes to be seen as sneaky or underhanded. Openness in government is essential, even when it's inconvenient.

Whether anyone will challenge the sale remains to be seen. We urge Billings and Broadweave to do all they can to clear up the questions quickly-- if they can.

Still more questions have popped up. For example, what happens to current service providers for telephone, TV and Internet if Broadweave's goal is to take over all of that? Critics say the Broadweave deal, in the absence of a clearly stated request for bids, creates a government-anointed monopoly.

Broadweave officials say that the company will be able to do better than the city did because, unlike the city, it will both own and operate the system. That may be, but the statement could be interpreted as meaning that the other providers shouldn't let the door hit them on their way out as the monopoly moves in.

We eagerly await Broadweave's promised announcement on the fate of providers, and for its explanation of how its business plan will ensure that competition is not throttled. If it is, one result might be a dramatic rise in the price of fiber-optic services.

Provo residents and members of the Municipal Council should scrutinize the sale proposal carefully. A public open house from 4 to 6 p.m. Monday at the network operations center, 744 N. 300 West, is one of several opportunities for people to learn more.

This deal has a number of positives. Letting a private company run the network is a good idea because it's not the kind of thing governments tend to do well. Broadweave has some impressive backers and promises to install technological advances with good customer service and "competitive" prices.

So it could all end up being a win-win, as backers claim. Billings and those who have pushed iProvo could then say that their vision paid off. They will say that for virtually no cost they got the city a strong communications infrastructure, then handed it off, at a good price, to a private company that can move it forward.

We shall see if that argument prevails.