PAWaterCooler.com

As long as a 2-1 vote carries the day in Montgomery County, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Montgomery County’s perpetual supplier of health care consulting services, CBIZ, has won the day again, this time securing a sweetheart deal that kicks back $10 to the consultant for every $75 fee per employee paid to IBC. With 3,000 county employees, you do the math.

Now I know what you are thinking: What exactly is it that a healthcare consultant does and why is one needed to manage a health care plan that the county has been on for years and why is the pay so lucrative? All good questions. Let’s turn to the Times Herald’s Keith Phucas for answers:

The Times Herald previously reported that since 2006, CBIZ officials have contributed a total of $24,463 to Matthew’s political campaign coffers, according to campaign finance reports.

During the 2007 commissioners race, company executives gave the Damsker-Hoeffel campaign $12,500.

On Feb. 12, 2008, CBIZ senior executive F. Bruce Walter gave Matthews, by then the commissioners chairman, a $1,000 campaign donation. Three months later, Walter gave $200 to Hoeffel’s campaign, according to 2008 campaign records.

I’m sure they do, you know, actual healthcare consulting stuff, too. Whatever that is.

So those of you with long memories may be saying to yourselves, “Don’t I recal that CBIZ is the company that was less than forthcoming about how they obtained those contracts and how much they were paid for the same? Wasn’t there something about producing Requests For Proposals (RFP) and complying with some Hoeffel-sponsored ordinance?” Well, you would be right. If you want to refresh your memory, you can look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So surely, you’re thinking, after all that fuss and stonewalling and charging for copies just a few short months ago, CBIZ must have finally produced the RFPs in question. That after the scrutiny of the press on a situation that had every appearance of Commissioners Hoeffel and Matthews engaging in pay to play, surely those aforementioned commissioners would not have the chutzpah to grant a two-year contract to CBIZ again without them complying with the original RFP request?

Errr….actually, no.

Not to worry, though. They submitted an RFP this time:

Recently, an RFP went out for a health insurance consultant, and five companies, including CBIZ, responded.

Explaining the evaluation process at Wednesday’s commissioners meeting, by G. Fred DiBona III, of DiBona Associates, admitted when questioned by Castor that he knew the firms by name that he helped county officials rank. As well, DiBona said Matthews recently hired him to assist human resources and commissioner staffers in the evaluations.

Hold up. Wait. Fred DiWHO the third? Who’s he?

He’s the consultant that was used to pick the consultant.

[DiBona] is a former employee of one of the vendors that submitted a proposal.

Castor echoed his past criticism about being kept out of the loop about professional services contractor selections.

“One of the things I thought we agreed on (in the new ordinance) was the three commissioners would get to vote on these contracts,” he said, referring to DiBona’s consultant work. “I didn’t know we were bringing you on.”

Matthews explained DiBona Associates met an exception in Ordinance 10-3 because he would not be paid more than $7,500 for his services.

DiBona also conceded the process that picked CBIZ was a “subjective determination,” and that evaluating consultant companies was not something he ordinarily does.

“It’s not a regular part of my business,” he said.

Not a regular part of his business? Well that’s a relief. At least he’s qualified to earn that $7500 fee.

So what does this all mean for the County? Bruce Castor (the “1″ vote in the perpetual “2-1″ voting pattern of the Montgomery County Commissioners) and Joe Hoeffel sum it up thusly:

The selection process was tipped in favor of CBIZ given that “The guy who is paying (DiBona) is CBIZ’s guy,” Castor said, referring to Matthews.

Hoeffel suggested possible bias was reflected in CBIZ’s high score for “Confidence of County HR/Finance Team with Vendor Capabilities,” perhaps because the company is the only health insurance consultant most of the staff had ever dealt with.

“The county staff likes CBIZ, and I think it helped (the firm),” Hoeffel said later.

And CBIZ will save the county money over the two-year $576,000 contract, by cutting the per-employee monthly rate by $2. Castor deemed it ironic that only now the consultant was revealing dollar figures for its services, something it has refused to do since December. He concluded current pricing makes the county contract worth more than $700,000 to the consultant for the same time period.

“Now you know why CBIZ didn’t want to tell us (how much it was paid),” Castor said following the meeting. “Because it looks like they’re getting a commission of $360,000 each year after contributing to the campaigns of Matthews and Hoeffel.”

Yup. Sounds like CBIZness as usual to me.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

 Governor Christie:

Political courage.

That is the description you have earned as Governor.  And for good reason.

You have successfully confronted the most powerful special interests in the state, sending a message that there are no sacred cows. In doing so, to the pleasant surprise of millions, the entrenched “business as usual” crowd is finally on the run.

In that regard, I want to discuss what is perhaps the most patronage-laden and inefficient entity in the state — the Delaware River Port Authority.

As you are aware, the contract of Authority Chief Executive John Matheussen expired July 17. While he is still functioning month-to-month as the CEO, his future rests with you.

There has been much coverage devoted to the largesse of the DRPA, specifically the $400 million in “economic development” funds that were spent on everything under the sun — except the bridges — leading to massive debt and rising tolls.

In addition to the misuse of the people’s money, there are a number of other factors to consider when deciding whether Mr. Matheussen’s contract should be renewed by the Board and approved by you.

Following are several examples of John Matheussen’s failed leadership:

1) Permitted Immense Conflicts Of Interest

Without question, Matheussen’s greatest failing is his toleration of the unfettered conflicts of interest that permeate the DRPA Board.

Upon assuming office in 2002, Governor Rendell appointed himself Chairman of the DRPA. One of the major beneficiaries has been his former firm, Ballard Spahr. In the three years preceding Rendell’s election, Ballard received $25,000 in legal fees from the Port Authority, including only $480 in 2001. From 2002 until the 2009, Ballard has received over $2.7 million.

Ballard, its attorneys and associated entities have contributed $1.5 million to Rendell’s campaigns.

Two of the governor’s former top aides, John Estey, his former chief of staff and Adrian King, his former deputy chief of staff, are currently partners at Ballard, and both hold or have held influential positions related to DRPA.

Estey has chaired virtually every Board meeting since 2002, and Mr. King served as the Authority’s Outside Counsel. Mr. Estey and Mr. King are brothers-in-law, and together have contributed over $35,000 to Mr. Rendell’s political coffers.

Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, who had been a Rendell appointee, sits on the DRPA Board. Her husband, Ken Jarin, also a partner at Ballard, served as DRPA Outside Counsel and occasionally chaired board meetings

Incomprehensibly, Matheussen never raised an eyebrow when Estey, King, Jarin, and Wiessmann voted to “accept and receive” Ballard’s legal bills to DRPA, since that action amounted to money going into their law firm’s pocket, and, ultimately their own.

As you know better than most, Governor, the toughest challenge of being a leader is to buck the crowd and do the right thing, no matter how difficult.  But instead of illustrating that trait, John Matheussen was an instrumental part of the go-along, get along crowd — to the detriment of all but the insiders

2) The Campaign Finance Report Conflict Of DRPA Executive John Rogale ….

(Read More at Philadelphia Magazine: Comments welcome)

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/07/21/its-time-to-clean-house-at-the-drpa/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Under the excellent stewardship of County Chairman Jim Matthews and his “power sharing” buddy Joe Hoeffel, leadership in Montgomery County has been an epic fail. In the news now is the notorious ordinance 10-3, which both the Sherriff and the DA believe to be an over-reach of power, inappropiately intruding on how elected row officers run their respective departments. Times Herald:

An attorney representing Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman expressed “steadfast opposition” to a new law governing professional services contracting, and he called on county commissioners to repeal the ordinance.

A letter dated April 27 from attorney Thomas A. Sprague claims the county’s recently adopted Ordinance 10-3 is “another attempt by the commissioners to illegally usurp the independent authority of the District Attorney.”

According to Sprague, decisions regarding the use of county funds involving criminal investigation and prosecution rest solely with the discretion of the DA.

This includes whether to retain expert witnesses or engage in any other professional services related to criminal investigations, he argued.

While the DA is calling for the law to be repealed, the Sherriff’s office has filed suit:

Montgomery County Acting Sheriff Alfred Ricci is suing the county commissioners over the validity of a new law governing professional services contracting.

The law, Ordinance 10-3, requires the commissioners to approve all professional contractors for legal, medical, architectural, accounting, engineering, real estate and other services in the county. The law requires either soliciting for vendors every two years or compiling a list of professionals to be approved by the commissioners.

A civil lawsuit filed Friday claims the commissioners lack the authority to determine whom the Sheriff’s Department uses for professional services, according to court papers.

Thomas J. Speers, the sheriff’s solicitor, said state law governs how the office should operate and the commissioners’ authority is limited.

Now comes news that controller Diane Morgan is also suing the County, and also over the notorious ordinance 10-3:

On Feb. 17, Morgan requested Solicitor Barry Miller hand over all county contracts awarded big government power grabs are de rigueur between January 2008 and December 2009. Though the documents were supposed to be delivered within 10 days, the request has now passed the 10-week mark.

In an April 22 letter, weeks after officials approved Ordinance 10-3, a new law governing professional services contracting, the controller asked for signed contract agreements and rates of three engineering firms that have performed work for the county. A week later, she received a binder that contained no formal agreements and expired insurance certificates.

Morgan is threatening to sue the commissioners on May 14 if the requested documents are not transferred to her office at One Montgomery Plaza.

“What I got is not sufficient,” she said. “The commissioners are not following our law (Ordinance 10-3), and I’m holding their feet to the fire.”

In spite of the fact that big government power grabs are de rigueur these days, it will come as no suprise to regular readers of this blog to discover how the vote to implement this ordinance went down:

Matthews and Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel voted to approve the ethics policy, while [Bruce] Castor Jr. voted against it, claiming the measure was a ploy by Hoeffel and Matthews to gain political advantage.

The suits argued that the three elected commissioners should not interfere with the running of the DA and Sheriff’s governmental departments, and county Judge William T. Nicholas ruled in the row officers’ favor months later. That decision is currently on appeal in the state’s Commonwealth Court. Arguments in the case are scheduled in May.

“(The new lawsuit) is just like the ethics ordinance (litigation),” [Commissioner Bruce] Castor said. “Every time we try to take control of the row officers, it’s like a power grab.”

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Rendell Legacy: Pennsylvania’s Fiscal Catastrophe

Let’s give credit where it’s due. Fast Eddie never gives up, no matter how short-sighted his ideas may be.

When we last left our lameduck leader during the 2009 fiscal debacle, which took 101 days to pass  a budget, the Governor was doing what Democrats do best — transferring  money from the people to government coffers.  How? By initiating yet more tax increases on an already overtaxed public.

No surprise there.

At a time when Pennsylvania families are doing the responsible thing — tightening the belt and exercising fiscal restraint — the Governor does the polar opposite. Rendell has proposed a budget increase of 4%, in large part to pay for his pet projects, while incomprehensibly ignoring the fact that revenues are declining. 

But given the fact that Rendell hasn’t signed an on-time budget since taking office, why not go 8 for 8?

He pays no attention to the coming pension bomb, in which obligations to state pensions will increase eightfold over the next three years, from $550 million to over $4 billion. 

The Governor has apparently ignored the recent court ruling that the $800 million raided from the MCARE fund —money specifically allocated to alleviating high medical malpractice premiums — must now be paid back.

And he conveniently forgets that there won’t be the $2.7 billion in federal stimulus money that we had last year, and that accounting gimmicks won’t work anymore — such as counting the anticipated tolling of Interstate 80 as “revenue.” 

(Despite Ed’s vehement objections, the federal government shot down the I-80 tolling plan, so it’s back to the drawing board).

All of which means higher taxes and an expansion of gambling — government at its finest!

But because Rendell believes that government, rather than the people and their employers, knows best, his approach makes perfect sense — at least to him.

And he’s dead right if you believe in: a) spending beyond your means, b) grabbing money and property that isn’t yours…..

Read the rest at Philadelphia’ Magazine’s Philly Post:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/04/20/how-ed-rendell-wrecked-pennsylvania/

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

After Jim Matthews’ now infamous “I am not a crook” interview a few weeks ago, the Times Herald’s Keith Phucas reports today the Pennsylvania Department of State has weighted in on whether Jim Matthews’ lease payments for his Ford Taurus are a legitimate campaign expense:

When elected officials claim campaign expenditures, they are required by law to show how the spending is campaign-related, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State.

For the past two months, Montgomery County commissioner Chairman James R. Matthews has been challenged to show how leasing a car is a legitimate campaign expense. The commissioner pays monthly to lease a Ford Taurus he claims as a campaign expenditure. When pressed to justify how he can use campaign contributions for monthly car payments, Matthews has defended the practice by declaring he’s always campaigning, “24/7.”

When the Department of State was queried about the legitimacy of making such a claim, spokesman Charlie Young said an elected official is obligated to prove the assertion that he’s effectively campaigning night and day.

“The burden of proof would be on the official to show that he’s campaigning ‘24/7,’” Young said.

(…)

Friends of Jim Matthews campaign expenditure statements show a $519.49 monthly lease payments for a 2008 Taurus beginning in December 2007, weeks after the commissioner was reelected. Other submitted expenditures include payments for car insurance, gasoline and maintenance for his so-called “campaign car,” as a notation on a car repair bill dubbed the vehicle. The bill to replace the car’s mirror, which bears the name and address of Matthews’ family mortgage business, was paid for with a check from his campaign committee.

Since “political animal” Matthews continues to maintain that his “24/7″ addiction to politics justifies the lease expense (but not, curiously, his Country Club, where he apparently takes a break from all that campaigning), Matthews once again demonstrates the confidence of Nixon in the waning days of Watergate:

When asked in an e-mail to explain how the Rhode Island gas purchase was specifically related to his campaign as a Montgomery County commissioner, his answer, which refers to “my campaign car,” didn’t specify what his political business was in the New England state.

“Yes, the damn thing requires gas. Why Rhode Island? When the law requires a daily diary, you won’t have me to kick around anymore,” Matthews wrote in a March 25 e-mail message.

Oh my. That seems a bit….testy.

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 8 commenters or Share This...

His “24/7 political habit” is apparently an addiction that it is ok for people to support. Times Herald video:

Keith Phucas: “Yeah, but it’s not actually your money. It’s campaign money for you to use for campaign purposes”

Matthews: “It’s my supporters, giving me money to support my habit, which is politics, 24/7. And I think there’s a huge amount of naivite out there, that there are hundreds of politicians out there that do not get money from the public, like the assembly does for the car who use their campaign accounts to support their car. My wife pays for her own gas, okay? I pay for my gas through my campaign account because I am always campaigning.”

Everybody got that? This practice is ok because 1.) Matthews is always campaigning 24/7 and 2.) Hundreds of other politicians in Pennsylvania do it too. A weak attempt to deflect attention to Bruce Castor’s use of a County car [when he was DA -ed] falls flat because employers often give employees automobiles for use during the course of their employment. The difference is that the money that is paying for those vehicles is typically tracked and taxed as income for either a person or an entity. Didn’t Tom Dascle get chased from a highly placed position in the Obama Administration for not claiming limosine services on his tax return, using a similar rationale that Matthews is using here?

Most of us have to pay taxes on the money we use to support our “habits.” How is Matthews’ funding of his Ford Taurus, that he uses to support is personal habit of 24/7 campaiging, any different from panhandling?

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

I was in error earlier when I stated that Montgomery County had delivered the records that the Times Herald requested under Right to Know. What the county delivered was a bill for copying the records in the amount of $1,000.

Instead of getting copies of all the contracts, totalling some 7,052 pages (for reference, that’s approximately two and a half health care reform bills), the Herald instead requested a list of vendors, which would serve the same purpose in a simplified way. Neither the Herald, nor Commisser Bruce Castor has received this document as of yet.

It’s reminds me of that scene in “A Few Good Men” when Tom Cruise is trying to out-lawyer the prosecution to keep his client out of court:

Kaffee: Look, Dave, I tried to help you out of this but if you ask for jail time I’m going to file a motion to dismiss.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: You won’t get it.

Kaffee: I will get it. And if the MTD is denied I’ll file a motion in limine seeking an evidentary ruling in advance and then I’m going to file against pretrial confinement and you’re going to spend the next three months going blind on paperwork because a Signalman Second Class bought and smoked a dime bag of oregano.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: B misdemeanor 20 days in the brig.

Kaffee: C misdemeanor 15 days restricted duty.

You don’t think anyone down at the County wants Keith Phucas to spend the next three months going blind on paperwork, do you?

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Montgomery County delivered to the Times Herald some 7,000 pages documenting the 173 county contracts awarded in the last 14 months. Now the arduous process begins in matching up contract awards with campaign donations, which will either confirm or dispell the allegations of pay to play that have been making headlines for the past three months.

The allegations surfaced during the County’s negotiations for healthcare for it’s employees. The contract was awarded to CBIZ, but neither the county nor CBIZ has thus far been table to produce the five requests for proposals (”RFPs”) that they were by law required to submit before the contract was awarded:

Matthews and Hoeffel received significant campaign contributions from CBIZ, the county’s sole health care consultant for at least a decade. Since 2006, company officials have contributed a total of $24,463 to Matthews’ campaign coffers. The consultant gave $12,500 to Hoeffel and Ruth Damsker during their 2007 campaign.

Also questioned was the awarding of a contract for legal work to Cozen O’Connor:

On Feb. 4, the Cozen O’Connor law firm was approved for a $49,000 contract as underwriter counsel for the bond issue. Two months earlier, Matthews received a $2,000 contribution from the firm; Hoeffel, $2,500, according to campaign finance reports.

Today, The Times Herald’s intrepid Keith Phucas reveals this little gem:

In an effort to save $300,000 or more, Tot Time Child Development Centers received a contract in December to provide day care for children of county employees. The company has facilities at the Human Services Center in Norristown and Parkhouse geriatric center in Upper Providence.

“What excited me about this is a downsizing of government, and it’s a win-win for everyone,” Matthews said the day of the vote.

The child development center is operated by Donna M. Fluehr, a longtime friend of Matthews. Between 2006 and 2009, Fluehr contributed $7,161.55 to the “Friends of Jim Matthews” campaign, according to campaign finance records.

A solicitation went out to 15 day care providers, and Tot Time, Freedom Valley YMCA, Creative Care Childcare Centers and Play & Learn Centers responded. But Fluehr, CEO and president of the company, was the only day care operator who gave money to Matthews’ campaign.

“It was totally Matthews’ idea we should privatize the day care facility, and I voted in favor of it,” Castor said.

But once Castor later learned about the relationship and campaign donations, he had second thoughts about his support.

“Only afterward was I concerned, when it just so happened that the only one that contributed (to Matthews) was the one that got the contract,” he said.

Interviewed in January, Matthews said he was surprised and pleased when Fluehr’s company was picked during the sealed bidding process that he played no part in.

“I had nothing to do with it,” he said.

Though Matthews has known the day care executive for more than 30 years, he said they never discussed privatizing the county’s child care centers.

“She’s been a friend of mine for years,” he said. “It never came up.”

Uh huh.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

I posted yesterday about the disregard of the ethics ordinance in Montgomery County. Today we see the effects of that disregard. The Times Herald’s Keith Phucas is on the case as always:

On Wednesday, [former county deputy treasurer Betsy McBride] wanted to know how Matthews’ campaign would justify his charging tickets for Radio City Music Hall’s Christmas Spectacular in December 2007 for $389.95; spending $250 for admission to The Clover Club’s 126th Annual Black Tie Dinner in April 2008, which included paying for his guest, Bruce Walter, a CBIZ executive; and making a credit card purchase at Hess gas station in Warwick, R.I., in September 2008.

Other credit card purchases in New Jersey, apparently for gasoline, were also submitted as legitimate campaign expenditures, according to a Times Herald review of the commissioner’s records.

Campaign finance vouchers show in December 2007 Matthews attended The Pennsylvania Society’s annual political event at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City; for more than a century, the banquet has attracted Pennsylvania industrialists, politicians and sports figures. A Discover Card bill for $1,456.10 reflects a three-night stay at the Park Avenue hotel.

In response to McBride’s written request this week, Castor again advised the former employee to seek avenues other than the Board of Elections for redress of her concerns. Previously he told her options included Common Pleas Court, the District Attorney or state Attorney General.

“That Mr. (Barry) Miller is both Solicitor to the Board and treasurer of Friends of Jim Matthews makes it impossible for the Board to seek legal advice without hiring outside counsel,” Castor wrote. “This is something I don’t believe is warranted. While Mr. (Mark) Levy and I might have been able to resolve your issues, we cannot do so without counsel. In my view, Mr. Miller’s dual role has rendered the Board powerless to act further in this matter.”

Levy, however, expressed no concern about Matthews’ expenditures.

“What I have seen from the time periods, I do not see any impropriety,” he wrote in an e-mail response to a question about the spending.

This should be public information. But remember, perpetual candidate for any available office and self-proclaimed moral compass of Montgomery County, Joe Hoeffel said there’s nothing to see here:

“In my opinion, neither Barry Miller nor Eleanor Schneider is violating the county’s ethics ban on political activity, assuming, as I do, that their involvement in the Matthews political committee is done while they are not on duty for the county,” he wrote in a recent message. “By their statements, neither is raising political money, managing a campaign, or running for office. Those are the only restrictions in our policy.”

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Montco enacted an ethics ordinance last year. Keith Phucas asks a rhetorical question in yesterday’s Pottstown Mercury: Do Montco Ethics rules matter?

The ethics policy prohibits about 80 employees from politicking while working for county government, including county solicitor Barry Miller and Human Resources Director Eleanor Schneider.

Recent research into Matthews’ campaign records by The Times Herald, sister paper to The Mercury, raises ethical questions about Miller and Schneider’s role in the chairman’s political campaign. Castor and Common Cause Pennsylvania’s Barry Kauffman agree that Miller’s role as Matthews’ campaign treasurer and the county’s solicitor is a conflict of interest.

Recently, Miller’s authority over the Board of Elections deepened the conflict when a citizen asked the board for more information about Matthews’ campaign spending, according to Castor, who is the election board chairman.

Miller, who is responsible for preparing and signing campaign finance reports for the Friends of Jim Matthews, has described himself only as a the campaign’s bookkeeper.

Miller is legal adviser to the commissioners and attorney for the county and its officials, according to the county’s Web site. His office draws up contracts and provides legal advice for governmental functions. He also brings and defends civil suits involving the interests of the county and its employees.

Schneider has signed many of Friends of Jim Matthews checks to pay campaign expenses and political contributions, all of which are recorded on campaign expenditure statements and available to the public at the county’s Voter Services office in Norristown.

Previously, Schneider worked as Matthews’ secretary. Since May 2009, she has been director of Human Resources.

Regular readers of this blog may recognize the name Barry Miller as a signatory on certain documents:

Readers may also recognize the name Eleanor Schneider from the same sort of document.

In fact, the headquarters of “Friends of Jim Matthews” is the same address as Barry Miller’s law practice.

I know. It smells fishy, right? Well fear not. This is Montgomery County, after all, where if the Commissioners find an ordinance too “confining” they can follow it in a “de-facto” sort of way (read, “ignore”) until they just vote to repeal it altogether. This, in the Montgomery County vernacular, is what’s called, “following the spirit of the law.”

Montgomery County voters can also take comfort in the fact that the perpetual candidate for any available office, and moral compass Joe Hoeffel says there’s nothing to see here:

As long as the two employees’ political activities on Matthews’ behalf are done away from the workplace, Hoeffel doesn’t believe they are violating the ethics law.

“In my opinion, neither Barry Miller nor Eleanor Schneider is violating the county’s ethics ban on political activity, assuming, as I do, that their involvement in the Matthews political committee is done while they are not on duty for the county,” he wrote in a recent message. “By their statements, neither is raising political money, managing a campaign, or running for office. Those are the only restrictions in our policy.”

Pennsylvania readers take special note: Joe Hoeffel would like nothing more (this election cycle) than to bring his special brand of ethics to the entire state.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Cue circus music and put the spotlight on the ringmaster: The Montgomery County Commissioners had another meeting last night.

In a move that should surprise absolutley no one, the Montgomery County Commissioners voted 2-1 to repeal Joe Hoeffel’s pet ordinance, which has somehow lost that urgent relevancy it had back when he championed it in 1998. What’s changed?

According to Hoeffel, Montgomery County now has a “bi-partisan” government. You may be more familiar with this as the “power sharing” deal Joe Hoeffel cut with Jim Matthews to effectively cut top vote getter Bruce Castor out of the decision making process. Intelligencer:

At one point, Democratic Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III pleaded with the pair to “get out of these political controversies and get back to governing” although Hoeffel also defended Matthews, claiming Castor was attempting to discredit Matthews for running a bipartisan government.

Oh yes, Bi-partisanship, that high-minded, fluffy ideal that we should all strive for. Such a great ideal, in fact, that Joe Hoeffel would work with someone he so vigorously campaigned against.

The Times Herald explains last night’s vote thusly:

The commissioners wanted to quell the controversy surrounding the county’s professional services contracting that began when Castor pointed out at the Feb. 4 meeting, just prior to vote on a $35 million bond issue, that officials had ignored a 1998 ordinance requiring at least five solicitations be sent out to prospective vendors.

Despite the revelation, Matthews and Hoeffel voted to approve the bond deal and two law firms who would handle the work. Two weeks later, Controller Diane Morgan threatened to invalidate any contracts that did not comply with the law.

“I will never admit there was any illegality in securing contracts,” Matthews said at the meeting Thursday

Not to split hairs here, of course, but “never admitting there was any illegality in securing contracts” is not exactly the same as there actually being not illegality in securing contracts.
What about “strong ethics” and “transaparency?” You know, those issues that Joe Hoeffel specifically ran against Jim Matthews on?

Castor also reminded officials that another law adopted nearly a year ago isn’t being followed either: The ethics ordinance. Approved last April, the measure mandates publishing all elected officials’ financial campaign reports on the county’s Web site, www.montcopa.org.

“We have not yet done this,” he said.

Only then would the county reach the goal of being transparent to the public, who could get online and compare a list of county vendors with the commissioners’ campaign contributors. Hoeffel agreed that elected officials’ information should have been posted to the Internet by now.

“I’m frustrated that our campaign finance records are not online,” he said.

Matthews blasted Castor’s insinuations that officials are trading contracts for campaign contributions and threatened action against The Times Herald, which he has repeatedly accused of “yellow journalism.”

“I’ve had enough of this demagoguery,” the chairman said. “I don’t like to be accused of illegality.”

Poor Jim. Poor poor Jim. I’ll just bet he’s had enough.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Some laws in Montgomery County should be followed very stringently: Times Herald:

The Montgomery County Controller’s solicitor, Sean Kilkenny, resigned Friday after his request for a conflict of interest waiver was denied by the county solicitor.

Kilkenny had planned to file a lawsuit on Controller Diane Morgan’s behalf to block a $35 million bond deal that Solicitor Barry Miller admitted Feb. 4 violated a county ordinance, but when the lawyer asked Miller for a waiver, Miller refused, citing the fact that Kilkenny’s law firm did business with the county, according to a March 3 letter.

“I expected to get a waiver, but I didn’t,” Kilkenny said.

Though the Jenkintown firm, Friedman Schuman, does contract work with the Department of Housing and Community Development, Kilkenny thought the real estate closing work his colleagues performed for the department wouldn’t pose a problem.

He reasoned the legal work wasn’t directly involved with the government’s administration, and he’d been the controller’s solicitor for about two years without an issue.

“It had nothing directly to do with the county commissioners,” he said. “But, it is what it is.”

Others are more like guidelines than actual laws:

Miller didn’t believe the procurement ordinance, adopted when Hoeffel, Mario Mele and Richard S. Buckman served as commissioners more than a decade ago, applied in all cases to contracting for professional services.

The bond issue that was approved by Matthews and Hoeffel, despite their admission that they haven’t been following that law, will cost Montgomery County taxpayers some $1 million in interest payments.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

About a month ago, Montgomery County Commissioner Bruce Castor called County Controller Diane Morgan on the carpet for not fulfilling her role as fiscal watchdog of the county. From the February 19 Times Herald:

Montgomery County Controller Diane Morgan threatened to withhold payment on any professional services contracts that run afoul of the county’s law, according to a letter the controller sent to commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. Wednesday night.

Morgan, who plans to investigate accusations that county officials violated Ordinance 98-2, has requested copies of any and all county professional services contracts awarded since January of 2008.

“Based on my duty as the County Controller and under the terms of the County Code, I will not authorize or approve the expenditure of any funds under contracts which may have been awarded in violation of Ordinance 98-2, and any such payments pursuant to those contracts shall be immediately suspended pending completion of my investigation,” according to Morgan’s correspondence.

(…)

Morgan admitted being unaware the 12-year-old ordinance existed. The law, which was put in place to safeguard against political patronage, requires that at least five request for proposals, or RFPs, be sent out to qualified vendors interested in providing services to the county.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but props to Ms. Morgan for taking a bold stand in threatening to withold payments to county contractors unless the proper RFP’s had been submitted and could be produced. That is, until the bully pulpit changed her mind:

Morgan drew the ire of commissioners’ chairman James R. Matthews when she talked about withholding payments to vendors.

“I will enforce this law as it’s written,” she said. “If you want to change it, that’s up to you.”

Matthews, who glared at Morgan sitting two seats away on the dais, would not accept the possibility that she might not pay current contractors who were not solicited for work.

“I’m saying you’re going to honor our contracts,” he said.

Solicitor Barry Miller warned against breaking or voiding any existing contracts.

“There’s no (legal) basis to do that,” Miller said. “I suggest the controller revisit that position.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this show of independence and integrity by Ms. Morgan was disappointingly short-lived. From the March 5 Times Herald article reporting Solicitor Miller’s proposal to just do away with that pesky RFP ordinance comes this reversal from Controller Morgan:

Though Morgan had been ready to file a civil lawsuit if her request for copies of “any and all contracts that have been awarded since January 2008 and have not been filed in my office” was not met, she decided against taking any legal action given that Miller did offer details on the bond contracts.

“I think today was a good starting point for all department heads to become aware of the need to centralize their documents,” she said.

To date, officials have not said how many professional services contracts exist in county government.

Now with a lawsuit pending over prison expansion construction, it appears that Morgan’s cave-in to Matthews and Miller over the very bond issue legal work awards that brought to light the chronic violations of Ordinance 98-2 may have cost the County some $1 million in taxpayer funds. In a memo to Morgan dated March 15, Commissioner Castor once again calls Morgan on the carpet:

You will recall that I urged the Commissioners to delay this bond issue for a couple of months to save a million dollars in this years’ budget. I pointed out that Ordinance 98-2 was not followed. I expressed reservations over the effect of so called “Responsible Contracting” provisions contained in the bid specifications for the prison expansion. Now, as I feared, the prison expansion project probably will be delayed by litigation AND we have missed the opportunity to postpone the bond closing until later in the year after these issues are litigated. Had you moved to enjoin the bond closing for failure to comply with Ordinance 98-2, as you should have, we could have litigated the suit without having to pay a million dollars of interest on the bonds this year. What could you possibly have been thinking?

All of us are subjected to political pressures as we do our jobs. But we cannot ever let those pressures interfere with our responsibility to our constituents. I know that following the course of action you said you would follow would have put you at odds with Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner Hoeffel, and Solicitor Miller. Have you read the recent news coverage? It now appears to be a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Matthews and Mr. Miller have been awarding secret no bid contracts to professionals while receiving campaign contributions from those receiving the contracts. They apparently have done so in flagrant disregard of not only Ordinance 98-2, but the Second Class County Code, and the Sunshine Law. It further appears that Mr. Matthews uses this money to pay for what the rest of us would consider personal expenses. Why would you protect such a system?

You and I both asked for a list of professional service contracts entered into since we took office. I enclose my memos to Mr. Miller on the subject for your convenience. To date, that list has not been provided. That troubles me, and should trouble you. If we had such a list, we could compare it to a list of contributors to ensure that there is no pay to play here in Montgomery County. The people elected YOU to keep watch over how we spend the people’s money. They elected YOU to be vigilant against pay to play. There are laws and an ordinance in place to shine light on contracting practices that the county routine ignores with your full complicity.

To repeat myself from my first letter to you: what are you going to do about it?

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Is leasing a top-of-the-line, fully loaded Ford Taurus at some $519 per month a legitimate campaign expense? That’s what former Montgomery County Deputy Treasurer Betsy McBride wants to know. Times Herald:

McBride questioned whether monthly lease payments for a Ford Taurus during the past 26 months was a legitimate campaign expenditure given Matthews was elected commissioner in 2007. What about insurance, fuel and maintenance for such a vehicle?

“More and more I’m coming to realize that Matthews must feel that the rules don’t apply to him,” she said.

But Miller said Pennsylvania law supports such use of vehicles by elected officials.

Based on the material McBride has recieved so far, she has been unable to confirm in whose name the car is leased. According to a comment she left on the Herald’s web site, McBride states that:

my request included wanting a copy of the lease agreement for the car. I have not received that. I have seen the monthly lease payments for the car and the car registration fee paid from a ‘Friends of Jim Matthews’ bank account. I do not know if the lease is under the name of ‘Friends of Jim Matthews’; the monthly payment coupons are not under that name.

Besides County Solicitor Barry Miller, look who else has signing authority for “Friends of Jim Matthews”:
The former deputy treasurer noted that Eleanor Schneider, the current Human Resources Director and

Matthews’s former secretary, had signed most of the Friends of Jim Matthews checks during the past two years, including when she was serving as HR director. “I almost fell off my chair,” McBride said.

McBride also requested a list of individuals authorized to sign the campaign checks, but she has not received that information.

So the County Solicitor AND the County Human Resource Director are both signers for Friends of Jum Matthews? I think we’d all like to see who else is on that list.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Montco is convening a new grand jury. Pottstown Mercury:

Guns, gangs and government corruption are just some of the crimes that a new grand jury, impaneled in Montgomery County, might focus on as authorities continue the war against crime.

District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman ordered the new investigative grand jury, consisting of 23 primary jurors and 12 alternates, to replace the current grand jury that dissolves at the end of March. The new grand jury will begin its duties in April.

“The grand jury is probably the most important investigative tool that we have. It was very important to me that we not see a lag in having the services of a grand jury available,” said Ferman, explaining a grand jury can be a powerful tool for authorities hoping to crack difficult cases, which might otherwise go unsolved.

Where could a grand jury be useful in Montgomery County, I wonder?

A grand jury is a useful tool when investigators believe that people are withholding information from authorities.

“Generally, in criminal investigations we can’t make people talk to us, we can’t compel them to talk to us, we can’t compel them to share information,” Ferman explained, adding that once a grand jury gets involved and subpoenas are issued, people have no choice but to testify or risk being locked up for contempt.

Interestingly, the Mercury’s sister paper, The Times Herald, had a lead editorial this morning lamenting the Montgomery County’s lack of cooperation in producing the RFP’s for the County’s health care:

We currently are in the midst of a battle with Montgomery County government to obtain what we believe to be public documents to determine the county’s relationship with a vendor.

So far, the county has complied with our Right To Know requests, but we say, so far, because we’re still waiting for some documents to be made available.

We’re also requesting county officials, particularly Montgomery County Commissioners Chairman James Matthews, to diagram for our readers just how the county lost its insurance coverage and how the county consultant, CBIZ, went about choosing Blue Cross as the administrator for the county’s now self-insured plan.

There doesn’t appear to be a need for a consultant when Blue Cross carried the county plan just one year ago. According to the commissioners’ chairman, Blue Cross dropped the county because it lost money insuring county workers. Certainly, Blue Cross would have been familiar enough with the county’s needs to administer a self-insured plan without having to go through a consultant.

Sounds like a perfect job for the Grand Jury to me.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Times Herald:

Montgomery County Solicitor Barry Miller is proposing the repeal of the 1998 professional services ordinance that officials admitted violating and rewriting the law to require the commissioners vote to approve any such professional services contract awards.

The proposed ordinance, which the commissioners will consider at their next meeting on March 18, calls for requiring request for proposals, or RFPs, for contracts greater than $10,000. For professional services contracts of $10,000 or less, prospective vendors vying for contracts would be selected from the commissioners’ pre-approved list of qualified candidates, but decisions would be dependent upon RFPs issued within the past three years, according to the proposed measure.

What a nuisance this ordinance has been since perpetual candidate for any available office Joe Hoeffel championed it back in 1998. Now that Hoeffel has cut that power sharing deal with Jim Matthews, there is absolutely no need to avoid the appearance of pay to play.

A special note to our readers across the state: Joe Hoeffel wants to bring the same brand of ethics reform he brought to Montgomery County to the entire state as your next governor. If you are confused as to what kind of ethics that is, its the kind of ethics that are ok to ignore once they become inconvenient.

And oh yes: the RFP’s the county was supposed to be producing to be in compliance with Mr. Hoeffel’s pet ordinance? They still have not been produced.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Times Herald:

Montgomery County Commissioner Bruce L. Castor sent a second memo Monday to Solicitor Barry Miller asking about the list of professional services contracts he requested a month ago but still hasn’t received.

As well, the Republican commissioner repeated his claim that he hadn’t been consulted on any of these contracts that were approved without a commissioners’ vote, as required by the Second Class County Code. And, Castor asked Miller to indicate on a future list of such contracts which ones were awarded without a public vote.

“Also please offer an explanation of how it is that contracts entered into without a public vote of the commissioners do not violate the Commonwealth’s Sunshine Law,” he wrote.

The purpose behind the commissioners being the “sole contracting agent” for the county is so the elected officials can oversee and approve spending of taxpayers’ money in public and not “in secret.”

It goes on and on and on.

He has raised similar questions about county business consultant, CBIZ, who solicited bids for health care to cover county workers in 2009. However, thus far the county has been unable to produce documentation showing the consultant was approved by a vote of past or present commissioners.

Comparing contract awards to political contributions over the past few years has raised questions about political influence in county government. Castor’s memo asks Miller to show officials have not been guilty of pay-to-play politics when awarding contracts.

“You stated in the last meeting (March 4) that there is no ‘pay to play’ in Montgomery County. We should be able to demonstrate that,” said Castor.

One has to wonder why if preparing RFP’s is such an arduous and labor intensive process why it is so difficult for the County to produce them once they have allegedly been completed.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

My my my. Look what former Montgomery County Deputy Treasurer Betsy McBride has turned up. Times Herald:

McBride asked to review details of Discover and American Express credit card payments that appear on Friends of Jim Matthews’ campaign expenditure statements during the past two years. Payments on the commissioner’s Discover card in 2009 amounted to more than $20,000, according to the former official. By comparison, campaign expenditure reports released by Castor on Friday for 2008 and 2009 show payments made with a “Friends of Bruce Castor” Visa card totaling $5,884.18 over that two-year period.

As well, the county’s former deputy treasurer wants information on monthly car lease payments to Ford Credit over the past two years or more. The first $519.49 monthly payment appeared on Friends of Jim Matthews campaign spending statements in December 2007, a month after Matthews was re-elected commissioner, and is recorded for each month in 2008 and 2009.

McBride also questioned two payments to USAA insurance in 2009 and a $36 car registration payment in 2008.

A car lease payment for $519.49? I guess there’s no need to suffer in a subcompact without heated corinthian leather seats when your “Friends” are picking up the tab.

Email LisaMossie, Join the discussion or Share This...

Montgomery County shenaningans have apparently garnered the attention of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a non-profit government watchdog group. Specifically, Common Cause is questioning County Solicitor Barry Miller’s role as Jim Matthews’ campaign treasurer.

Barry Miller, for those of you keeping score, is the man at the center of the the famous Castor/Matthews falling out. The GOP Committee-arranged marriage of Castor and Matthews was already on shaky ground when Matthews’ insistence on hiring his good friend and campaign treasurer Barry Miller as County Solicitor, and Castor’s objections to same, led Matthews to cut the notorious “power-sharing deal” with perpetual candidate for any available office Joe Hoeffel.  A deal that has been giving Montgomery County Republicans agita since 2007.  Times Herald:

Common Cause Pennsylvania has indicated Montgomery County Solicitor Barry Miller could be on shaky ethical ground serving as both solicitor and campaign treasurer for county Commissioner chairman James R. Matthews.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a political watchdog group in Harrisburg, said elected officials’ roles should be clearly delineated and avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

“It sounds like (the solicitor) is treading close to ethical lines he doesn’t want to cross,” Kauffman said. “I think it makes the public uneasy.”

The solicitor is legal advisor to the commissioners and attorney for the county and its officials, according to the county’s Web site. The Office of Solicitor draws up contracts and provides legal advice for governmental functions. The legal official also brings and defends civil lawsuits involving the interests of the county and its employees.

The county’s Ethics Ordinance bans the solicitor and about 80 other county employees from participating in political activities while employed by the county. However, Miller insists his role as campaign treasurer for Friends of Jim Matthews is only administrative and doesn’t violate the policy.

For his part, despite the fact that his signature appears on most of Matthews’ campaign finance reports, Barry Miller insists his involvement with Matthews’ campaign is little more than administrative:

“I’m a bookkeeper,” Miller said. “I don’t solicit funds or raise money.”

Pennsylvania’s Manual for County Commissioners ecommends against this procedure:

Despite the fact that Miller is a personal friend of Matthews, he was picked as solicitor, a scenario discouraged in Pennsylvania’s Manual for County Commissioners: “When engaging a solicitor it is wise to put friendship and patronage aside and find an attorney with municipal law experience.

“The commissioners must be apt to listen to advice given and allow their solicitor to keep them out of trouble rather than expect the solicitor to get them out of trouble.”

But take a closer look at the address of “Friends of Jim Matthews”

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

Which ordinance was that?

Oh THAT ordinance.

The ordinance that perpetual candidate for any available office Joe Hoeffel pushed for passage in his first pass as Montco Commissioner, then promptly ignored once he took a second tenure as Montco Commissioner. Times Herald:

Former Montgomery County commissioner Thomas J. Ellis, weighing in on the county’s professional services contract controversy, said he may not have been happy with the ordinance governing contractor solicitations, but he and his fellow commissioners followed the law.

(…)

“We were very cognizant of that ordinance,” he said.

When interviewed by phone Wednesday, Ellis recalled preparing five requests for proposals, or RFPs, when the county sought work from lawyers, engineers and architects during his term, as required by the county’s 1998 ordinance.

(…)

“We didn’t like to do it, and we probably cursed Joe Hoeffel for passing the ordinance, but we followed it,” Ellis said. “Many times it was discussed and always followed.”

Hoeffel, who served the first time as commissioner from 1993 to 1998, said recently he pushed for the measure 12 years ago to improve the competitive process for professional services, claiming the then-Republican-dominated board favored their political supporters when awarding contracts.

The County Solicitor’s Office has asked for more time to gather the evidence of Matthews’ and Hoeffel’s adherance to Joe Hoeffel’s pet RFP ordinance:

“We presently estimate that we will be able to provide a response to the remainder of your request no later than March 24, 2010,” reads a letter from Assistant Open Records Officer B. Thomas Noonan, who works for the county solicitor. “We estimate that the total number of pages for documents responsive to your request is in excess of 1,000 pages.”

My guess is that nothing will actually break loose on this unless an official investigation by law enforcement commences in the meantime.

And of course, I see no reason for that not to happen. There is enough smoke in this case for law enforcement to start probing for the flames.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...