Comments

1. 

   DJRippert

   May 15, 2012

   “Virginia’s law doesn’t go into effect until July 1.”.

   Jim – Why doesn’t Virginia’s law go into effect until July 1?

   Could it be that Virginia’s state legislature refused to vote the measure as emergency legislation?

   Those representatives could be sitting on the board right now if Virginia’s own General Assembly would have voted to put the legislation into effect early – isn’t that right, Jim?

   In fact, what was the State Senate vote count on the emergency legislation? Was it 20 – 20?

   The MWAA refused to seat …
   Despite enabling legislation …

   Pretty slanted commentary, Jim. Those representatives are not sitting on the board today because one half of Virginia’s duly elected State Senate voted against enacting the legislation early. Did you forget that fact?

   74 – 22 is pretty lop-sided. Could it be that even the General Assembly has decided to stop looking a federal gift horse in the mouth?

   The federal government provides approximately $11B per year in subsidies for mass transit. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t – but they do. Over the 5 – 7 year life of the Rail-To-Dulles project the feds will fund $55B – $77B in mass transit. Presumably, Jim wants the state to turn down this money.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   larryg

   May 15, 2012

   Is this the Virginia version of “Don’t Mess with NoVa”?

   :-0

   ” “MWAA is not a Virginia agency,” ”

   What? this sounds like a job for the Cooch!

   Okay.. time to hunt down the feckless pols who signed off on this agency that seems seems immune from any accountability.

   Was it Gilmore or Kaine or who?

   who was the chump that signed off on this?

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      James A. Bacon

      May 15, 2012

      Handing over responsibility for Rail-to-Dulles and the Dulles Toll Road occurred on Kaine’s watch. But McDonnell doesn’t get off the hook. As Attorney General, he gave his blessing to the arrangement. Now he’s living with the monster he helped create.

      Log in to Reply
3. 

   bosun

   May 15, 2012

   In listening to the floor debate, the reason the General Assembly voted against it was the first issue [sloppy wording] not necessarily dictating to regional agency. The way the amendment was worded, which the Republican floor leader ultimately agreed, the state would have no authority to spend ANY money for ANYTHING after June 30 unless the MWAA caved before then. The Sect’y of Transportation, when told of this earlier in the week, reportedly called the legislators who read the amendment that way, “idiots.” Bosun

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   TMT

   May 15, 2012

   The US DOT IG’s interim report on MWAA was released today (May 15). Here is the SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
   “Although the airports and projects it operates are federally owned or financed, MWAA is independent of the Federal Government and not subject to Federal laws that govern ethics, transparency, access to information, procurement, and other areas. As such, MWAA’s governance depends on the strength of its internal codes, policies, and processes, and its adherence to them. However, our work to date indicates that MWAA’s accountability to Congress, stakeholders, and the public—as well as its compliance with the Act—has been limited by weaknesses in its internal policies and oversight of these policies. In particular, MWAA’s policies and procedures related to financial disclosures, travel, and transparency are insufficient to ensure fiduciary and ethical responsibility in the Board’s expenses and activities. MWAA’s contracting policies and practices are similarly insufficient to ensure compliance with the Act’s provisions and its internal procurement procedures, resulting in contracts that are not subject to full and open competition and may not represent best value.

   “MWAA’s policies and practices are generally less rigorous than corresponding State and Federal rules. Notably, MWAA’s government-appointed Board members are not bound to the same State ethics and financial disclosure laws as the elected officials who appointed them. This puts MWAA and its Board of Directors in a unique position compared to other major transportation authorities that are State entities—and subject to State ethics, transparency, and procurement laws—or Federal entities subject to corresponding Federal laws. Moreover, the policies lack procedural safeguards for ensuring they are followed. There are limited avenues for judicial review, and few other mechanisms (such as penalties for non-compliance) for addressing concerns regarding MWAA’s ethics, transparency, contracting, and other practices.6

   “Our ongoing review has revealed a culture that is largely unaccustomed to external audits and inquiries by the accountability community. While MWAA has freely cooperated in most areas of our review, Board and staff in some areas were reluctant to provide access to key documents and grant us private interviews with Board members. MWAA’s reluctance to providing us full transparency may be attributable to the fact that it has experienced few independent audits since its creation 25 years ago. In contrast, similar entities, such as the Board of Directors of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, must follow Texas State law and guidelines related to ethics, transparency, and procurement, and willful failure to comply can be punishable by imprisonment and fines.7

   Finally, based on our preliminary review, MWAA’s assumptions for Dulles Toll Road revenue appear reasonable. However, increased public and governmental scrutiny is likely for MWAA as it continues its progress on the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project and other high-profile endeavors. This will necessitate a greater commitment to ensuring transparency to its stakeholders and the public to promote and sustain confidence in the integrity of its actions and decisions.”

   Footnotes
   “6 Another consequence is that there is less protection for employees who report fraud, waste, and abuse or who are asked to cooperate with investigations. Employees of most Federal entities are protected by Section 7c of the Inspector General Act, which prohibits reprisals for making complaints or disclosing information to an Inspector General. Most States have similar provisions for State employees. See, e.g., Virginia Code Ann. § 2.2-3009 et seq; MD Code, State Personnel and Pensions, § 5-305. This includes obtaining financial disclosure information.”
   “7 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reviewed some aspects of MWAA’s contracting procedures, most recently in 2002, but has not conducted an audit of MWAA’s overall management policies and processes as we do in our current work.”

   Let’s give them some more money. Hell, how about independent taxing authority? How about a grand jury?

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      James A. Bacon

      May 15, 2012

      TMT, Check out the story I just posted. Make sure you read the last two paragraphs.

      Log in to Reply
5. 

   TMT

   May 15, 2012

   Congressman Frank Wolf’s letter to Secretary LaHood.

   Dear Secretary LaHood:

   I am deeply troubled by the findings released today in the interim report from the department’s Inspector General (IG) on the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (WMAA) Board of Directors. I requested this audit last year and am sure you agree that the report raises significant concerns about the current board’s policies and procedures, including contracting practices, ethics and transparency. This demands immediate action.

   Most egregious are the IG’s findings about MWAA’s contracting practices. The report notes that in many cases MWAA failed to even abide by its own established contracting procedures, which already fall short of industry standards. Particularly concerning are the number of sole source contracts issued. As you know, MWAA is required by law to fully compete any contract over $200,000, with limited exceptions. Yet the IG’s report states that “[d]uring the period of our review, MWAA awarded five sole source contracts that were over $200,000, but did not fall under any of MWAA’s categorical exemptions. These contract awards, which amount to $6 million, did not have Board approval.” Not only did MWAA abuse the exemptions permitted under federal law, they issued numerous contracts that failed to meet even these basic standards.

   The report points out that while MWAA’s Contracting Manual says some exemptions are allowed, but “comprise only a small portion of MWAA’s contracts and their dollar value,” the IG found that the use of exemptions “has amounted to 40 percent of the Authority’s $589 million in contract awards during the period of our review.”

   The IG’s report also shows that conflicts of interest between members of the board and contractors were ignored. The report details how “… one Board member’s recommendation led MWAA to initiate a $100,000 contract with a law firm despite the fact that an immediate family member worked for the firm.” The report goes on to say that “while this family relationship had been previously disclosed, the Board member did not refrain from participating in matters related to the firm when the issue arose (per MWAA policy), and MWAA awarded the contract to the recommended firm. At minimum this created the appearance of a conflict of interest that may have been avoided had the Board member exercised better judgment and fully followed MWAA’s ethical procedures.”

   This particular contract was initiated to procure a legal opinion by the law firm Jenner & Block for the express purpose of advising the board on how it could avoid complying with a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. Amazingly, the report shows that the contract was requested on November 18, 2011, the same day the president signed the bill into law. It also is worth noting that the report reveals that the law firm submitted its “completed legal opinion to MWAA before the noncompetitive contact [was] documented and officially signed.” Enclosed is a letter I sent today to Jenner & Block’s managing partner asking the firm to return the money it received for the opinion.

   The report also details the lack of proper standards for the recusal of board members. The report states that MWAA’s ethics practices “are vague regarding when and how Board members should recuse themselves when a conflict of interest arises.” The report cites an instance where two board members recused themselves from a particular issue. One member left the meeting while the other stayed. While the report said the board member who stayed did not participate in the decision or vote, “he had been instrumental in drafting the materials that were up for a vote, and had a clear interest in the outcome of the vote because of his relationship with the organizations that would potentially benefit from the proposal passing.” This simply cannot stand.

   The interim report also addresses MWAA’s lack of transparency, specifically noting the board’s excessive use of closed executive sessions. MWAA routinely uses these closed sessions to discuss important business that the public has a right to know. The report cites two examples that are particularly egregious. In one instance, the report notes that, “MWAA’s recent revisions to its bylaws were conducted in a closed executive session – even though the revisions included enhancements to transparency.” Later, the report states “…MWAA’s Board holds its audit committee meetings exclusively in close executive sessions.” Discussing transparency and the results of audits in closed session is counter intuitive and shows remarkable hubris.

   The report further details how MWAA’s board members abuse the public trust, charging expensive flights and meals to the authority. The report cites one voucher reviewed which “contained meal expenses for some Board members and their guests for a trip to Hawaii for a conference. The cost for three dinners totaled approximately $4,800.” What is even more troubling is the fact that, “[W]hile MWAA’s travel policy states that Directors should make every effort to secure the most cost effective means of travel, there are no specified guidelines to limit travel costs for these kinds of trips.” If the board does not issue adequate guidelines, extravagant expenses like this will continue to occur.

   I am also troubled by what the IG says is one set of standards for authority staff and another – seemingly lower – for the board. Equally troubling is that the IG has “identified some concerns related to nepotism at MWAA; our work is ongoing in this area.” I am pleased the IG is continuing to look into this.

   One issue that is not addressed in the report – but has been confirmed by the IG – is deeply troubling: the financial settlement with Nathaniel Ford, the former San Francisco, California transit official who was originally considered for the CEO position. Why is MWAA paying an individual who never worked a single day for the authority? I am told MWAA refuses to tell the IG’s team the details of the settlement, claiming a confidentiality agreement. This is not something that should be hidden from the IG or the public.

   I know how important these airports are to the success of the region. Dulles, in particular, is the economic engine of northern Virginia. Sadly, the current board has not capitalized on past successes and instead is now completely dysfunctional. Contributing to this dysfunction is the that some public officials charged with appointing MWAA board members fail to do so in a timely fashion, permitting board members to continue to serve years after their terms expire. These concerns led me to introduce legislative changes to the board, since signed into law, including the provision stating that a board member may not serve past the end of their term. Disturbingly, these are the very changes that MWAA paid $100,000 to avoid.

   Based on our conversation this morning, I support your desire to place a top member of your staff immediately at MWAA to report directly to you in an effort to address the concerns detailed in the IG report. As you know, I introduced legislation last month to create a permanent IG for MWAA that would have complete access to all board actions, including executive sessions. Your staff member must be able to attend executive sessions.

   Mr. Secretary, I applaud the steps we discussed and share your belief that immediately establishing an IG at MWAA will help ensure that the abuses detailed in the interim report never happen again. If the IG determines that it is necessary to “clean house” in order to implement the recommendations of the audit team, so be it. The responsibilities of the MWAA board are so important to the region that no necessary effort needed to restore public trust should be omitted.

   I know how much you care about the two airports run by the authority and understand how important they are to the Washington Metropolitan area and the nation. I also appreciate the countless hours you and your staff have invested in the successful completion of Dulles rail. Your personal involvement has been critical to the project.

   I also want to tell you how much I appreciate the outstanding work of Inspector General Calvin Scovel and his team. I am well aware of the time, energy and effort that have gone into the interim report and know there is a great deal more work to do. I look forward to the IG’s final report later this year.

   Best wishes.

   Frank Wolf

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   DJRippert

   May 15, 2012

   Virginia Republican (former) Congressman Tom Davis is on the board. Any word from Tom?

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   DJRippert

   May 15, 2012

   The only improving transportation areas in Northern Virginia are the two airports. The CTB may follow the rules but the results suck out loud.

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      James A. Bacon

      May 15, 2012

      Don, the MWAA board could be conducting child sacrifices in Satanic rituals, and you’d be defending them. I have yet to see you concede that maybe MWAA could be run even a little better, or that any change is in order.

      Log in to Reply