Let third party judge port authority ethics

When running a family business, using your own money, you are free to turn to people you know and spread the work to family and friends. But a quasi-public agency is obligated to seek out the best people at the best price.

Among the problems that have seriously damaged the credibility of the Connecticut Port Authority since its formation in 2014 has been the history of running it more likely a family business than the quasi-public agency that it is.

In 2017, when the authority was preparing to move into its Old Saybrook offices, then Executive Director Evan Matthews hired a Rhode Island friend to do the interior design work. Then when artwork was needed, it was purchased from a family member of former board member, and briefly chairwoman, Bonnie Reemsnyder.

Former chairman Scott Bates, a Democrat and now the deputy secretary of the state, who stepped down in 2019, made sure a firm he was familiar with from its work with Democratic candidates got a slice of the marketing and communications pie. Likewise, Bates turned to a former associate, Andrew Lavigne, when he needed a consultant.

When running a family business, using your own money, you are free to turn to people you know and spread the work to family and friends. But a quasi-public agency is obligated to seek out the best people at the best price. The legislature gave much latitude to quasi-publics with the intent they could get things done faster without the strings attached to typical government bureaucracies. But favoritism seen at the port authority and other quasi-publics suggests there has been too much latitude and too little oversight. Reforms are necessary.

Another example of discomforting familiarity has emerged concerning the hiring by the port authority in May 2018 of Seabury Capital Group. The authority board settled on Seabury to manage the process of finding an operator for State Pier in New London and used the firm to negotiate the contract with the winning bidder, Gateway, which also operates the New Haven port.

Seabury has been paid about $700,000, including a controversial payment of $523,000, the latter payment the result of a settlement with the authority board over how much it should be paid under “success fee” provisions in its contract. Three of the 13 board members voted against the payment when it was approved last July. A member of the State Contracting Standards Board, which is reviewing the matter, has questioned why the Office of Policy and Management, rather than a high-paid consultant, wasn’t tapped to assist.

What has only been recently revealed in the reporting of columnist David Collins is that the contract with Seabury was signed just a few months after Henry Juan III, a managing director with Seabury, left the port authority board. A Republican legislative leader had appointed Juan to the board.

It doesn’t look good. You’re a member of a board, privy to its plans and thinking, and soon after you resign, your company lands a lucrative contract with that board.

In a recent guest commentary, David Kooris, current authority chairman, argues it is all OK. There was a competitive process and Seabury won, Juan having nothing to do with the outcome.

Meanwhile board member John S. Johnson of New London, in another guest commentary, takes umbrage at Collins’ commentary that he has an inherent conflict of interest. For two decades, Johnson has owned a 35,000-square-foot warehouse on Crystal Avenue near State Pier.

The authority has control over State Pier and its future. Johnson contends that because none of his commercial tenants have business with the pier or the authority, there is no conflict.

But certainly, as Collins has noted, what happens at State Pier could have much to do with the future value of Johnson’s property and his business. Under state law an official has a “substantial conflict” when his “official action would directly affect his financial interests.”

How about this? Since Mr. Kooris is confident there was no conflict in the hiring of Seabury and Mr. Johnson sees no conflict between his votes and his property holdings, why not turn these matters over to the Office of State Ethics for advisory opinions?

Laying their cards on the table would be a step toward rebuilding the authority’s credibility. A simple “Trust us” isn’t working at this point.