Dulles Toll Road Transfer to MWAA Perfectly Legal, the Cooch Advises

Ken Cuccinelli: What can he do? The law’s the law.

by James A. Bacon

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas, probably did not get the answers he hoped for when he asked for an advisory opinion from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on matters pertaining to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Cuccinelli has gone on record opposing the Rail-to-Dulles project administered by MWAA as a boondoggle. But he did not let that sentiment sway him in his interpretation of the law.

Specifically, Marshall asked whether former Gov. Tim Kaine had acted legally in 2006 when he granted the state’s interest in the Dulles Toll Road to MWAA, in the absence of concurrence by the General Assembly, to provide a funding mechanism for Metrorail extension. Further, Marshall asked if both parties to the interstate compact creating MWAA, Virginia and the District of Columbia, had to amend the compact in order for MWAA to legally take possession of the toll road.

Although the question has not been conclusively resolved, said Cuccinelli in a letter written last week, he believes that the governor was authorized to make the transfer. Stated the AG:

The only court to consider this question concluded that the transfer of the Commonwealth’s interest pursuant to the MOU was permissible. Therefore, although there is no precedent from the Supreme Court of Virginia delineating the precise authority of the Governor in this context, the Governor’s actions were upheld in a court of law.

Furthermore, Cuccinelli said, there was no need to amend the interstate compact. “The approval of MWAA’ s Board would be sufficient to confer upon MW AA the authority and responsibility to operate and maintain the Dulles Toll Road.”

Addressing other questions posed by Marshall, Cuccinelli advised that Virginia would not bear any liability should MWAA default on its bond obligations, and that MWAA, as an interstate compact, was not subject to either the federal nor the state Freedom of Information Act laws. “The MWAA Compact does not specify that one or both of the freedom of information statutes applies to MWAA,” he wrote.

Cuccinelli’s ruling, coming as it does from someone unsympathetic to the Rail-to-Dulles project, should pretty well quell any speculation that Kaine’s 2006 transfer was unlawful. What’s done cannot be undone. There’s no point in beating that horse, which is so dead that it’s been shipped to the glue factory.

However, the lack of an effective FOIA law governing MWAA is clearly a flaw in the authority’s governance structure. The only way to deal with that, however, is to amend the interstate compact. It’s a long and tedious process to get approval from both Virginia and D.C., but that’s the way it goes. The McDonnell administration should initiate that change. It won’t make a difference while McDonnell is in office, but Virginia citizens will appreciate the greater transparency in years to come.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. larryg Avatar

    Okay.. so let me get this straight. The Constitution allows the created of an unelected body that can toll the bejesus out of hapless commuters (or other victims) and there is no FOIA or other even a requirement that they provide agendas and minutes to the public?

    So we could create even MORE of these critters under the current laws?

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The constitution allows an inter-state compact. However, it certainly doesn’t mandate that any be created. That was purely the work of the two governments involved – DC and Virginia.

    As for freedom of information – the Constitution doesn’t mandate it either. However, it doesn’t prohibit a charter that requires compliance with FOIA law either. That omission was purely the work of the governments involved – DC and Virginia.

    As for Cuccinelli’s claim that the board can seat the new members without amending the charter – what does the AG of DC say? If he or she said the same thing then I would agree that the new members should be seated. I wonder if any of our vigilant members of the MSM have considered asking.

  3. larryg Avatar

    notice how this has become “inside baseball” with voters and drivers on the DTR your proverbial rubes….

  4. […] The only court to consider this question concluded that the transfer of the Commonwealth’s interest pursuant to the MOU was permissible. Therefore, although there is no precedent from the Supreme Court of Virginia delineating the precise authority of the Governor in this context, the Governor’s actions were upheld in a court of law. (H/T Bacon’s Rebellion) […]

Leave a Reply