DRPA still struggling with influence of politics and money

The role of politics and money is never far below the surface at the Delaware River Port Authority, despite last year's efforts to reduce pay-to-play influence at the bistate agency.

Political contributions by financial, engineering, and other professional firms have long been part of the equation for companies seeking lucrative contracts to work for the DRPA.

The issue was illuminated again this month in a behind-the-scenes struggle to select an auditor to examine the books of the DRPA.

The longtime incumbent auditing firm, Bowman & Co. of Voorhees, is a significant contributor to South Jersey politicians, especially Democratic candidates. Since 2007, the company has contributed $563,870 to political candidates and organizations.

Among the recipients of Bowman's money are Jeffrey Nash, the Camden County Democratic freeholder who is vice chairman of the DRPA board, and Stephen Sweeney, the Democratic state Senate president, whose brother Richard is a DRPA board member.

Bowman was one of seven firms seeking a three-year contract to conduct annual audits of the DRPA. It proposed to charge the DRPA $455,500 for the work.

The five that made it to the final round were Bowman; Zelenkofske Axelrod, a Bucks County firm that contributed $107,200 over the last four years to mostly Republican candidates, including Gov. Corbett, who chairs the DRPA board and appoints most of its Pennsylvania members; KPMG of Philadelphia, which contributed $2,600 to Mayor Nutter and $40,000 to a political action committee for the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants; Clifton Gunderson of Philadelphia, which made no contributions; and McGladrey & Pullen of Bloomington, Minn., which also made no contributions.

The debate over the contract highlighted the limits of the DRPA's reform efforts last year.

Bowing to the demands of Gov. Christie, the DRPA board last year made a number of changes in its governance and pay-to-play rules. But the board balked at an effort by some board members to ban political contributions by DRPA vendors.

Instead, it approved a weaker measure that has required vendors to list their contributions with their bids and to comply with state campaign-finance laws in New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

At the time, a Pennsylvania board member, former Pennsylvania state Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, called the measure "woefully inadequate" and said it would be "virtually meaningless" in Pennsylvania, where campaign-finance law is lax.

The DRPA's recent debate over the auditing contract was conducted mostly in secret. The board's audit committee, which was to recommend an auditor to the full board, met three times behind closed doors in executive sessions.

But the minutes of the panel's brief public sessions provide a glimpse of the wrangling involved.

Pennsylvania board members wanted to replace Bowman, and board member Joanna Cruz, a Republican lawyer from Montgomery County, was especially critical of Bowman's campaign contributions.

New Jersey committee members, led by Nash, voted to keep Bowman and voted against Zelenkofske, the choice of the Pennsylvania members. Nash cited Zelenkofske's political contributions in his objections to that firm.

The deadlocked committee eventually turned to a compromise choice, McGladrey & Pullen, which was the second-highest of the five bidders, at $455,798 ($298 more than Bowman and $56,723 more than Zelenkofske).

McGladrey has local offices in Philadelphia, Blue Bell, and Moorestown.

The DRPA's full board approved the contract with McGladrey this month without dissent.

Nash said Tuesday that his initial support for Bowman had nothing to do with its political contributions, and he noted that the company had contributed to his political opponents as well.

"For me, contributions never make a difference," Nash said. "But to punish a company that is playing by the rules of their state is unfair."

Nash said he was persuaded instead by a recommendation from the New Jersey state comptroller's office to change auditors periodically.

He said the goal of the DRPA's reform rule adopted last year was to require disclosure of contributions "for transparency," not to prevent contributions or doing business with contributors.

Cruz said Tuesday that the "general concern, obviously, with contributions is: Are people trying to influence decisions based on those contributions? . . . The concern is the appearance of impropriety."

She said the board might need to revisit its rules to determine what should be done with the contribution information that was now required from vendors.

Wiessmann, who is no longer on the board, said Tuesday that "best practices" for a board like the DRPA's would be to prohibit doing business with vendors who make political contributions. She cited similar limits that were imposed on municipal securities brokers by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

"The public is best served," Wiessmann said, "by officials who do not have conflicts of interest."