| Ashcroft's law firm was hand-picked by Christie to oversee Zimmer Holdings of Indiana. But Christie protests any talk of favoritism for his old boss: ""These companies visited this upon themselves with their criminal conduct," Christie said. "Given what these companies were costing the American taxpayers, the fees that these monitors charge for changing the industry's practices will be a real bargain at the end of the day."
First of all, Zimmer doesn't think it's a real bargain. It was outrageous enough that they felt compelled to report it publicly. Then we have this little comment from the Star-Ledger story: "The federal government is coming in saying, 'You shall hire this monitor,'" said Jim Cotterman, a principal with Altman Weil, a legal consulting firm in Pennsylvania. "You are not going to negotiate much on fees or get a competitive bid."
So maybe having Christie hand-pick the monitors instead of submitting it to group vetting or special contracting isn't such a wonderful idea. But it isn't really about how much Ashcroft's firm gets paid so much as it is about why they are getting paid in the first place:
"I certainly don't think it's a problem to hire somebody who used to be your boss but no longer is," said Christie. "What am I getting out of this exactly? I can tell you, I'm getting nothing, except the comfort in hiring people I know I can trust to do the job."
Is it just me or have we heard that same line come out of the mouths of every politician indicted by Christie in the last few years (with some variance, of course)?
There are other reasons to question Christie's judgment on his hand-picked monitors. For instance, David Kelley, who is a former Attorney General for Manhattan, and John Carley, who is a VP at Cendant.
David Kelley, while serving as US Attorney for Southern New York, was responsible for indicting fifteen financial specialists for insider trading - including Christie's brother Todd. Even the New York Times found it odd that Todd Christie, as one of the leading profiteers, escaped criminal prosecution. No public explanation, as far as I can tell, has ever been given for this strange coincidence - but the appearance of "you do me a solid and I'll catch up with you later" certainly has reared its ugly head.
The conflicts with John Carley are not so straight forward. First, there is the conflict between Cendant and Chris Christie. If Cendant doesn't come directly to mind as a case of corporate malfeasance, then you can blame that on Enron for shouldering past it in a bid to be "fiscally creative" as a means of boosting stock price. The chairman, vice-chairman, and a couple of accounting executives were brought low by Chris Christie's prosecution. So there are a number of executives at Cendant that owe their jobs, literally, to Chris Christie. Again, have we not seen Jersey pols clean house (even using legal means to do so) and have a crop of replacements beholden to them?
Mr. Carley, by the way, was serving as vice-president and legal counsel for Cendant while the malfeasance was ongoing. He also serves as a member of John McCain's Presidential campaign's leadership team. He previously worked for Richard Nixon's and Ronald Reagan's administrations, as well as Rudy Giuliani. How often have Jersey politicians claimed that someone's connections to previous power-brokers were not a factor in someone getting a contract or job?
I do not want, in any way, to cast any doubts on the character of either Mr. Carley or Mr. Kelley - or, for that matter, John Ashcroft. I'm not even saying that Chris Christie broke any laws. All three men have served the public and have a record that can defend their appointments as monitors (though the idea that Ashcroft qualifies because he ran the Justice Department and therefore ""understands organization structure and how to get things done" in a corporate setting" is a bit troubling - wasn't the DoJ riddled with problems during Ashcroft's term?). But it comes back to that troubling quote from Chris Christie - "I'm getting the comfort of nothing, except the comfort of hiring people I know..."
That is, unless I miss my guess, the very heart of patronage. Christie has built a reputation for going after people who use their public office to reward friends and family. Now it appears that he has that same blindspot, and no statement from his office is going to change the appearance of so many conflicts of interest in such a lucrative matter. The appearance of a conflict of interest is not evidence of wrongdoing, even in New Jersey. But if Christie's own record of litigation shows, the best way to show that is by having a fair and equitable investigation of the facts. It's just unclear who would investigate the chief investigator.
(cross-posted from NJVOICES)
UPDATE: Congressman Frank Pallone also noticed this and wrote a letter to Chris Christie explaining his concerns (hat-tip to PolitickerNJ, a site that refuses to link to other sites). |
