Dear Governors Rendell and Corzine:
It is no secret that the Delaware River Port Authority has recently come under intense criticism. The organization is $1.2 billion in debt and cannot sufficiently fund major capital projects, such as re-decking the Walt Whitman Bridge. As a result, the Board of Directors today authorized a substantial toll increase at its board meeting.
However, there are a number of unanswered questions that extend well beyond the scope of a toll hike. In the hopes of shedding some light on these issues, The Bulletin herewith asks the DRPA to address four questions that can no longer remain under the bridge:
1)Why is Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, who has a seat on the DRPA Board, authorizing expenditures to the law firm of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, (Gov. Rendell's former firm), the firm in which her husband, Ken Jarin, is a partner? And why are partners in that firm chairing DRPA board meetings when their firm represents the board?
Since Governor Rendell, the DRPA chairman, rarely attends board meetings, he appointed John Estey as his chairman-designate. What makes this particularly interesting is that Ballard Spahr represents the DRPA Board, and both Mr. Jarin and Mr. Estey are partners in that firm. Since the chairman-designate has the same voting power as the chairman, Mr. Estey is, in point of fact, authorizing payments to his own firm. And when Treasurer Wiessmann doesn't think that DRPA's in-house general counsel and staff attorneys are equipped to handle a legal matter, and authorizes outside counsel, she too is putting money into her husband's pocket - and ultimately her own.
2)Why does the DRPA's Director of Labor Contract Compliance, John Rogale, list two employers on New Jersey state election records, illustrating a potentially huge conflict of interest?
Election law requires that political contributors disclose their employer under the "Occupation and Employer Information" section. Pursuant to a May 17, 2006 contribution, Mr. Rogale listed the DRPA as his employer. However, on a contribution nine months later, he listed "Remington and Vernick Engineers" of Haddonfield, New Jersey as his employer - at a time when he was (and still is) employed by the DRPA. Given that Remington and Vernick is a general engineering contractor for the DRPA, it is a gross conflict of interest if Mr. Rogale's is employed by that firm. If he does not work for them, and since this is not an "easy" mistake to make, why did Mr. Rogale list them as his employer?
3) Why does Marc Woolley hold positions at both the Ballard Spahr law firm and the DRPA?
According to the DRPA, Mr. Woolley serves as Assistant to the Chairman as well as Director of Claims Administration. But he can also be reached at the Ballard Spahr office in Philadelphia, where he started working last week. Working for both entities would be an obvious conflict of interest. If he is "transitioning" from one organization to another, Mr. Woolley's employment during this time should be kept to one organization, never overlapping.
Given that the DRPA's public image is extremely negative, Mr. Woolley's situation, with no explanation from the DRPA, is unacceptable. At this point, even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided at all costs. Immediate clarification on this matter is requested.
4) Why does John Matheussen, Chief Executive Officer of DRPA, refuse to commit the $35 million of economic development funds for either debt retirement or the Walt Whitman Bridge re-decking project?
Given the DRPA's economic woes, and the fact that 76 percent of its revenues are utilized for salaries, benefits and debt service, common sense dictates that it should eliminate the economic development grant program, instead using the remaining money on bridge maintenance (which would be approximately 20 percent of the re-decking cost) or to retire a portion of its paralyzing debt. Mr. Matheussen's refusal to do indicates that the DRPA's will resume its "business as usual" operations as soon as the current controversy subsides.
These are but a few of the many outstanding questions swirling around the Port Authority. The Bulletin respectfully asks for immediate clarification on these questions. This letter has also been addressed to each member of the DRPA Board and Mr. Matheussen.
Sincerely,
The Philadelphia Bulletin (Chris Freind)
