Mayor Mufi Hannemann's effort to solidify public support for rail transit is off to a shaky start because of a needless furor over a no-bid contract awarded to a friend and political supporter of the mayor.

Hannemann is making a mistake by brushing off the matter as politics and sour grapes while complaints by a competing contractor and a city councilman head for possible state and federal review.

Many residents remain ambivalent about this high-priced attempt to relieve traffic congestion between West O'ahu and Honolulu — and the record tax increase that will be needed to pay for it.

To keep his fragile mandate for transit from shattering, Hannemann must inspire absolute confidence that every penny is being spent prudently and that lucrative contracts are being awarded solely on merit.

He's failed to meet this standard in the current dispute over the first significant transit contract — $9.7 million awarded to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc. for the initial planning.

The Parsons proposal that was evaluated by the city in a competitive process listed Communications Pacific and two other firms as subcontractors that would be paid $1 million to gather community input.

But after the contract was awarded, the Hannemann administration shifted most of the community outreach work to Community Planning Inc., headed by Hannemann confidant Joseph Pickard.

Pickard's firm was never evaluated by the city's selection committee in the initial competition for the work.

The administration may have had a good reason for making the switch, but refused to reveal what it was to jilted contractors, a City Council member or the public, only saying vaguely that Community Planning was more than just a public relations firm and that no law was broken.

Communications Pacific chief executive Kitty Lagareta disagreed that the change was legal and filed a complaint with the state Procurement Policy Board.

Councilman Charles Djou, an opponent of the 12.5 percent excise tax increase to pay for transit, was similarly stonewalled by the administration when he asked for the rationale behind the contracting decisions.

Getting no meaningful explanation from the city, Djou requested an investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is paying for 80 percent of the transit study.

Hawai'i's political carnival never really starts until U.S. Rep Neil Abercrombie arrives, and he jumped in by accusing Djou of a publicity stunt that could derail federal support for O'ahu transit.

Djou can be a bit of a grandstander, for sure, but for the blustery Abercrombie to level such criticism is like a coqui frog accusing a gecko of being too noisy.

The big question we take away from this squabbling is the same one that has always hung over transit: How can we have any faith that local politicians possess the competence and integrity to build and operate the most expensive public works project in Hawai'i's history?

Notwithstanding his rants against Lagareta and Djou, the mayor has nobody but himself to blame for whatever grief this furor ends up costing him.

He could have headed it off from the start — and possibly still can — by simply coming forward with a thorough explanation of the rationale for switching subcontractors.

Why not answer the questions: How did the work change that required a change of contractors? What specific expertise and resources did the companies selected in the initial competition lack? What was the relevant experience of the competing firms?

Hannemann asserts that rail transit has gained too much momentum to be stopped at this point.

He'll be proven sadly wrong if he doesn't start to get it that his job is about providing leadership and engendering trust, not winning debate points.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net.