This Barbieri Business Does. Not. Look. Good.
I’ve made no secret of my opinion that Mike Barbieri was one of the most effective legislators in Dover during his time there. A serious legislator with the willingness to build coalitions to pass progressive legislation that helps some of our most vulnerable citizens.
Having said that, the relationships between Barbieri, his company (Crossroads of Delaware), the state, and his recent hiring by the state raise all sorts of questions that require answers.
During Barbieri’s time in the General Assembly, he also was the Chief Executive Officer for Crossroads of Delaware, a youth treatment center in Wilmington. He served as Chair of the House Health & Human Development Committee, which considers matters that would likely be germane to the services offered by Crossroads. In this July 13 News-Journal article, Barbieri announces that he’s leaving the House of Representatives to take a job as the Director of the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health for the Delaware Department of Health & Social Services. DHSS Secretary Rita Landgraf makes that hiring decision. In the article, Barbieri states that he will relinquish ownership of Crossroads to avoid any ‘perceived conflict of interest’. His new salary?: $144,213.
To be fair, I had no problem with this, as I viewed Barbieri as very well-qualified for this position. It’s his profession, plus he pushed through some forward-thinking legislation in this policy area. We’re not talking Tiny Tony DeLuca here.
However, subsequent events raise questions about Crossroads’ operations and Barbieri’s dubious ethical involvement at the state level.
First, a rape allegation against a Crossroads counselor.
…Crowley had been in negotiations to purchase the business from Barbieri, but has delayed settlement amid worries that her daughter’s arrest will jeopardize Crossroads’ lucrative state contract, she said. Crossroads’ contract was worth about $1.07 million last year, according to public records.
In an interview, she said Delaware officials were attempting to smear Crossroads’ reputation by stopping referrals amid longstanding disagreements between Crossroads and officials at the Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families over how to treat adolescent patients.
Uh, maybe it’s just me, but it seems like these wounds have been self-inflicted. My advice to Alberta Crowley: “Stop digging.”
Finally, here’s the kicker. Despite Crossroads performing in general at a lower level than other state contractors:
“… Barbieri, an influential lawmaker who chaired the Health Committee of the Delaware House of Representatives while working as a state contractor, increased Crossroads’ state business 57 percent from 2011 to 2015 – from about $680,000 to $1.07 million this year.
At least one other service provider with a higher rating saw its state contracts reduced during the same period, according to the Jonathan Starkey News-Journal article. Which is why I have real problems with this quote from Barbieri:
“Our market drove our revenue, not the state,” Barbieri said. “I don’t think they have given me anything, to tell the truth. I think we have had to argue, fight and push to get what we get. That’s not wrong. If we agree all the time, I think something’s not right. I hope our providers in the adult system fight with me.”
Pardon my skepticism, but to think that Barbieri had no involvement whatsoever in Crossroads’ battle for more state funds doesn’t pass the smell test. And, Barbieri was ethically-bound to remove himself completely from this due to the clear conflict-of-interest between a legislator and business owner who gets contracts from the state. As to his statement that Crossroads has had to fight the state for everything it gets, well, show me a contractor who doesn’t complain that the state is giving them short shrift.
I also (stop the presses) agree with some Republican legislators here:
Last Tuesday, six Republicans who served under Barbieri on the House Health Committee sent a letter to Gov. Jack Markell, saying they did not know he had a health-related contracting business with the state, and the Republicans questioned that arrangement.
No, Barbieri isn’t the only legislator who has curried contracts from the state for their business while serving in the General Assembly. Former State Rep. Roger Roy, for example, got even wealthier by garnering funding for his so-called Transportation Management Association through the Bond Bill. A blatant conflict-of-interest. Del-Tech always has a legislator/Del Tech employee or two on the Joint Finance Committee. Trust me, I can go on. Which only reinforces the point: It is unethical in each of those circumstances, and many others like them.
I think that this situation clearly calls into question whether Barbieri should continue to serve in his new capacity. What once appeared to be an inspired choice now looks to me like a greasing of the skids for a legislator who played ball with his new employer while in the General Assembly. Which makes him no different than Tiny Tony.
Tags: El Somnambulo, Featured, Mike Barbieri, Steve Tanzer Delaware
This post might well be subtitled “El Somnambulo wakes up.”
Seriously, one must wonder what goes on in the Markell administration. If Rita is going to hire a legislator, Jack surely knows. And if Rita is going to hire someone whose business deals with the state, you’d think she’d call Jennifer and ask about the track record that business has in providing the services specified under those contracts. But maybe Jennifer didn’t know, or she didn’t want Rita to know. Or maybe Jack and Rita and Jennifer didn’t think anybody would ever find out.
But that’s a story for another day … I hope.
By definition, the Somnambulant One does not wake up.
Oops, lapsing into third person again…
I agree with your point about the seemingly non-existent vetting process. Although…absent the rape allegation and its aftermath, it’s unlikely that this story would have ever surfaced.
Sort of a tangent… Isn’t this a function of how we pay our legislators? If we paid them a full-time salary and forbade outside work, wouldn’t we end up with fewer of these issues?
Huh…that’s like arguing that more guns will reduce gun violence.
I don’t think it’s a huge hardship to ask legislators (committee chairs no less!) not to funnel state contracts to organisations in which she or he has a (significant) financial interest (CEO!).
Barbieri’s explanation, as noted in the post, is ridiculous. Thank goodness he didn’t use LG’s excuse. That’s even more slimy. The old “I have to make a living” gambit.
If we paid them a full-time salary and forbade them outside work what would stop anyone from being offered a heftier salary and breaching his or her two year (in this case) contractual obligation to the electorate. These situations suggest that an elected public servant should believe that he/she can test the free-agency waters like a professional ballplayer regardless of the lack of any specifically talented skill and regardless of those voters who put their trust in that official when they elected him/her to a set term of office. This issue and issues of sensitivity to appearances/realities of conflicts of interests or appearances of impropriety can not be legislated away but should be a matter of conscience, morality and honor.
Representative John Kowalko
There remains the tricky problem whether Rep. Barbieri’s appointment to be the Director violated the State Constitution’s “Ineligibility Provision” (Art. 2, sec 14). That rule prohibits a legislator from being appointed to an executive office where the salary for that office has been increased earlier in his present legislative tenure. The salary for the Director’s office increased $500 on Jan. 1, 2015, during Rep. Barbieri’s present term. This would seemingly trigger the Provision’s disqualification from holding that office. However, the kicker is that the pay raise was enacted during the prior legislative term but did not become effective and payable until the current term. Whether the disqualification applies in that context is tricky ( I still think the language of the Provision applies and bans the appt. ). The Governor’s counsel has told me that they are studying the problem. In contrast, the Atty. Gen. has never responded to my letters suggesting that there was a constitutional problem with this appt.
At the moment, we encourage this sort of behavior. Even the least skilled of our legislators are (on some level) a leader and/or a risk taker. Ordinary schlubs like me can’t take a job like this that requires huge commitments of time and energy for a relative pittance.
So we end up getting a bunch of retirees (police, military), state employees and small business owners. Everyone else has to rely on their boss’s good will and patience.
There probably should be a revolving-door rule of some sort, but doing that without a fair salary is going to continue to reduce the pool of schlubs that can even consider a run.
One more point, from ElSom’s original post:
I also (stop the presses) agree with some Republican legislators here:
Last Tuesday, six Republicans who served under Barbieri on the House Health Committee sent a letter to Gov. Jack Markell, saying they did not know he had a health-related contracting business with the state, and the Republicans questioned that arrangement.
I don’t have the current edition, but the 2013-14 Legislative Roster published by the state Chamber of Commerce has this under occupation in Barbieri’s bio: “Social Worker, Small Business Crossroads of Delaware.”
OK, so Barbieri may have been more than just a social worker, but the name Crossroads is right there. There’s no excuse for Republican legislators not knowing where Barbieri works. They should be embarrassed to have admitted so much in a letter to the governor.
No free pass for them.
That’s not what they said. They said that they were not aware of the state contracts that Crossroads sought from the State of Delaware.
Of course, any R who served with Roger Roy was well aware at the time that he funneled state $$’s to his TMA. So, their expression of shock is insincere. Nonetheless, that doesn’t make the appearance of conflict-of-interest any less real.
OK, El Som, maybe I’m stretching a bit, but I dare you to show me a Republican anywhere in Delaware (or in the entire U.S.) who does not believe, as a matter of party dogma, that social services organizations exist/survive/thrive through the contracts they secure from federal, state and local governments.
I totally agree with you there, MW. And they’ll use any pretext to achieve their goals. I mean, Planned Parenthood, anyone? And, sure they’re using this to score political points.
But they didn’t create this embarrassment. They’re just taking advantage of it. Should we not cover it?
I agree that we should be all over Barbieri on this one. (If you go back to the original DLpost on Barbieri’s hiring, I think you’ll find I was among the first to question what was really going in.)
Just can’t put up with the righteous indication of the clueless Rethuglicans.
Cronyism at it’s best!
So glad this is all finally coming out, I’ve been watching this happen now for years. The news journal had been digging into crossroads and their issues with the state for at least a year now that I’m aware of, the articles have been in the works for a while, the alleged rape just sensationalized it more.
I agree with Mr. Kowalko – you can’t codify ethics. But we can codify disclosure. It is remarkable to me that a conflict this blatant remained under the radar for so long. Kind of makes me wonder what else is out there?
Wait, you are JUST realizing that Barbieri is corrupt as fuck?
By chance have you ever spoken to him?
Can you elaborate on that Mike D? For those of us who have not spoken to him, it would be interesting to know.
I’ve spoken to Barbieri. He doesn’t come across that way at all. Mike D was merely making an ad hominem attack.
El Som, did you even reach out to Mike to hear his side before you wrote this? And while you all sit behind your keyboards condemning those you don’t even know, Mike is in his new position helping those who truly need it. And, oh yeah, he’s getting paid 144k to do it. So he has his dream job with a good salary, he’s really helping others. I’m guessing he doesn’t give a damn what’s any of you think. But carry on with your ever shrinking circle of “progressives”.
It appears this guy was the Chair of the GA Committee responsible for large state contacts to an organisation in which he had a financial interest.
Maybe it was all legal and/or maybe I have my facts wrong. I’ll happily accept new information here. But if I have it basically right, this cat is a shady character. I don’t know what the problem is in pointing that out.
If he doesn’t care that he looks like a scumbag that’s fine by me. I know many people doing great work in community health and social services without taking $12 grand a month off the top. So maybe you can defend him with a defense rather than this silly idea that he’s “helping people” in his “dream job.” Like this guy’s a fucking saint & we’re all dicks.
If these facts wrong correct us. Otherwise spare me the empty platitudes.