Saying the municipalities weren't trying to game the system, is not proven by saying you don't have to participate.
The statement that if you don't like the rules you don't have to participate plays to the nature of your position. This isn't a private business or private project, these are public municipalities that are spending tax payer dollars. In the name of transparency for voters they should not be able to hide what they're doing.
Wait, so it's the voters who are clamoring for the use of open auctions to determine what bank to invest public funds with? Um, no. As for "[hiding] what they're doing", what do you mean? The article mentions nothing about the municipalities hiding things from the public. If you're referring to the closed auctions, that's just a way of selling something that benefits the seller. It's not "closed" in any other sense.
So what you're saying is that, because a municipality is a public entity, it shouldn't be allowed to invest funds in a manner that would be perfectly acceptable for a private entity not because the entity's constituents disapprove, but because the banks don't like it? That's absurd. If buyers shouldn't be allowed to dictate the negotiation tactics of private sellers, they shouldn't be allowed to dictate the negotiation tactics of public sellers either. You seem to be conflating (or attempting to conflate?) the banks with the municipality's constituents. It's true that a municipality must answer to its constituents, but it doesn't have to answer to any private bank that feels like whining.
The statement that if you don't like the rules you don't have to participate plays to the nature of your position. This isn't a private business or private project, these are public municipalities that are spending tax payer dollars. In the name of transparency for voters they should not be able to hide what they're doing.