I read the News Journal article yesterday, and I shrugged. Then this morning we received this comment on another post:
ANnnnnyyyy coverage on the Jack Markell unclaimed property semi scandal?
Is it a scandal, though? Even a semi-one?
A Wilmington law firm managed by Markell’s former chief of staff received nearly $2 million from the state in the last two years to help collect money owed by businesses under a program he helped create while working for the governor. State officials picked the firm, which has hired other Markell staffers, even though it received lower marks than two other bidders competing for the work, records show.
Nearly $1 million more went to Markell’s campaign finance chairman to represent the state in a Chancery Court case filed by the office supply chain Staples. The company settled its lawsuit challenging a state audit that demanded millions from the business.
In addition to Markell supporters and former staff members, state officials also have paid $120 million to a Massachusetts-based corporate auditing business that has hired two high-ranking Delaware officials.
So long as the bidding process was fair and open, what is the scandal here? This work, collecting money owed to the state, is a legitimate enterprise, and the state, like other creditors, has to pay a third party to collect the debt. The “scandal” appears to be that the winner of the bid NOW employs former Markell staffers. How is that scandalous? Are we saying that if you have ever worked for the state government you can never be employed by any private business who has a state contract? Seriously?
James Browning of Common Cause says the deals around the state program prove Delaware needs stronger laws preventing state officials and employees from profiting from their public jobs. And the state should require better lobbying disclosures for those seeking public business, he said. I agree with all of that, but is that what is happening here? Are there state officials and employees profiting from the work they do in official capacity? Or rather, did the state employee perform his or her job, resign, and then take a position at a private company that has a state contract? Is that profiting?
Absent some proven quid pro quo or wink and a nod, this is not a scandal. It is what happens in a small state. Which is why we are so adamant about open and transparent government. Because we know it happens, so we want the government to be open and transparent about what it does so that when a Markell staffer goes to work for a company with a state contract it doesn’t look like a quid pro quo.
The time line the News Journal provides doesn’t indicate any such thing:
Tom McGonigle, who served as Markell’s chief of staff, helped craft the legislation that created the new program [in June 2012]. In July 2012, [Sec. of State Jeff] Bullock awarded the contract to run the new program to Drinker Biddle & Reath, a Philadelphia-based law firm with 11 offices nationwide. In November 2012, McGonigle left his job with Markell to join Drinker Biddle as a regional partner managing the Wilmington office.
Geoff Sawyer, a former deputy to McGonigle in Markell’s office and a lawyer experienced in abandoned property matters, also works at Drinker Biddle. He was in negotiations to join the firm as the state contract was being considered, joining the office in October 2012. Greg Patterson, another former deputy chief of staff to Markell, joined Drinker Biddle this year to launch a new lobbying practice for the firm’s clients.
There is nothing to indicate here that McGonigle, Sawyer or Patterson were involved with selecting Drinker Biddle, and even if he was, there is nothing to indicate a quid pro quo.
McGonigle said he played no part in the bidding process while working for Markell and does not work on the state program at Drinker Biddle.
“I was aware of it because it was a legislative initiative that I was involved with,” McGonigle said. “I haven’t billed any time to the matter since I came to the law firm.”
Joseph Schoell, a former aide to Gov. Ruth Ann Minner who works at Drinker Biddle and helped land the contract, said the firm bid on the state work in good faith.
“Although we were not privy to the decision-makers’ thinking, my impression at the time was that Drinker had advantages in terms of size, capacity, and ability to finance a quick ramp up of a major initiative for the state,” Schoell said by email.
The News Journal says that “Nothing about the relationships and contracts is illegal[;] [b]ut the contracts raise questions about how Markell, who came into the governor’s office critical of backroom deals that benefit insiders, runs the program that collects so much state revenue.”
Well, these are not back room deals. These are conference room deals. And yes, insiders benefit, in that they now have private employment after their state job was over. But unless you prove to me that the deal was “McGonigle you give us the contract and we will give you a partnership in six months,” there is no story here. Prove that, then publish this article. Otherwise, all this is a bunch of legal activities and legitimate state business cobbled together so that the News Journal can raise questions about Markell and good government.
Newsflash, Jack Markell is not the open government progressive he campaigned as in 2008. He said he was to gain traction among progressives in the Democratic Primary against Carney. But those of us who believed that were made into fools. But that does not mean anything untoward is going on with the state’s business with Drinker Biddle or Kelmar. If you are going to ban state employees from ever taking a job with a private company that has a state contract after their state employment is finished, that is going to seriously hamper the state from every hiring anyone half way competent.