Further reflections on the Bridgegate scandal
On May 22nd of last year, I wrote a column entitled Reflections on the Bridgegate Scandal in which I took umbrage at a comment regarding Bridgegate made by Julie Roginsky, a prominent Democratic operative. Ms. Roginsky said, “I have a very big problem with the notion that we are sending anyone to prison for a dumb stunt that doesn’t merit incarceration.” On May 7th the US Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote, agreed with Ms. Roginsky that the defendants William Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, should not go to jail for creating a traffic jam that was intended to punish the Mayor of Fort Lee because they did not commit property fraud as defined by the federal fraud statutes.
The court ruled that based on the federal statutes at issue, holding the Bridgegate defendants accountable was a misapplication of the statue as neither of them was guilty because the plan wasn’t intended to “obtain Port Authority money or property.” In the opinion Justice Kagan wrote: “The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing—deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct.” The ruling went on to indicate that the defendants were engaged in “political retribution” that “jeopardized the safety of the town’s residents” and was designed to send a message and “to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to support the New Jersey Governor’s reelection bid.”
Let us remember that in an admirably concise e-mail Bridget Anne Kelly wrote: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” To complete the scheme, “a cover story” was concocted “that the lane change was part of a traffic study, intended to assess whether to retain the dedicated Fort Lee Lanes in the future.” The plan worked flawlessly according to the Supreme Court opinion: “Almost immediately, the town’s streets came to a standstill. According to the Fort Lee Chief of Police, the mess traffic rivaled that of 9/11, when the George Washington Bridge had shut down. School buses stood in place for hours. An ambulance struggled to reach the victim of a heart attack; police had trouble responding to the report of a missing child. Mayor Sokolich tried to reach Baroni, leaving a message that the call was about an “urgent matter of public safety.” Wildstein, the conceiver of the plan, Kelly and
Baroni maintained “radio silence” and Kelly Ann sent a text message, “Is it wrong that I am smiling.”
Despite what former Governor Christie said, the defendants in Bridgegate were not vindicated by the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision! They abused their power and undermined public trust in government – and got caught-up in the vindictive political culture of Chris Christie and paid an enormous price for their corrupt and deceptive transgression.
The defendants were tried in the wrong venue. They should have been tried in the State rather than the Federal courts. There appears to be little doubt that they would have been convicted under provisions of New Jersey’s misconduct in office statue (2C:30-2) which indicates that “the crime of official misconduct requires that the defendants: (1) was a public servant, (2) committed an act relating to his office, which constituted an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that it was unauthorized or committed in an unauthorized manner, and (3) had a purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit (underlining added)” There is, no doubt, that the defendants deprived the residents of Fort Lee of the use of dedicated Fort Lee lanes on the Bridge’s toll plaza.
I’m not suggesting that the defendants be retried. They have had their lives disrupted for almost seven years and their reputations besmirched. Enough is enough. I would, however, like to see the legislature hold open public hearings to discuss in detail what went wrong in Bridgegate and how we can take steps to reduce the likelihood that this kind of corrupt official abuse of power does not occur again. More specifically, I would like to hear a frank transparent discussion which includes answers to the following questions and what, if anything, can be done to reduce the culture of corruption that is all to prevalent in New Jersey and leads far too many residents to see Bridgegate as just another example of just plain “New Jersey politics.”
Since New Jersey’s Attorney General is appointed by the Governor, should there be a provision in state law that calls for the creation of Special Prosecutor in potential corruption cases involving appointees of the Governor since there is little certainty that state authorities would have pursued such prosecution.
Would having an elected Attorney General, not beholden to the Governor, reduce the likelihood of the State ceding corruption cases to federal authorities and improve the overall integrity of the public sector?
How do we ensure that in the future the Port Authority Police Department is not compromised by politics?
People could have died as a result of the wrongdoing by the defendants. How do we send a clear message that what occurred in Bridgegate was “criminal” behavior and not “routine” bare-knuckle New Jersey politics and will not be tolerated?
It imperative that we make it abundantly clear to all New Jersey elected officials, at all levels, that if they manipulate government functions for greed, personal advantage, political advantage or punish an elected official and someone’s life is disrupted, is hurt or dies as a result of their official misconduct we will throw the book at them. No ifs ands or buts.
Irwin Stoolmacher is the President of the Stoolmacher Consulting Group, a fundraising and strategic planning firm that works with nonprofits agencies that serve the truly needy among us.