Truly independent probe of DOT situation is needed

Gov. Bill Richardson said at a news conference today in Santa Fe that there was “no impropriety” in his acceptance of campaign contributions from two developers picked for separate multimillion dollar contracts with the Department of Transportation, the Associated Press is reporting.

He said there is “no connection” between contributions and decisions made in state government. He said he doesn’t get involved in such projects and often doesn’t even know who contributes to his campaign.

The statements came with the not-surprising news that the attorney Richardson has hired to conduct an “independent” review of the controversial DOT projects won’t look into the governor’s involvement, but will only look at other aspects of the situation.

There may not be any involvement. But Richardson’s attempt to convince the public that his potential involvement doesn’t warrant consideration is ludicrous.

Here’s the situation: One of Richardson’s biggest financial supporters, Gerald Peters, bid on the DOT headquarters project. He was awarded the contract. Because he was the only bidder, complaints led the DOT to seek new bids on the project. After he was awarded the contract a second time, but while he was still in negotiations with DOT, Peters and his wife each gave $2,300 – the maximum allowed by state law – to the governor’s presidential campaign. Peters then hosted a fundraiser for Richardson’s campaign at his home.

Meanwhile, at some point, DOT made a major change to the scope of the project, one that was not announced publicly. Instead of having to build a 300,000 square-foot building for DOT in exchange for the right to develop the rest of 25 acres of state land near downtown Santa Fe, the successful bidder would only have to build a public facility that’s about half that size – significantly cutting the cost on the public facility and increasing the amount of land available for the selected bidder – Peters – to develop for his own profit.

On the second, smaller project, the contract was also awarded to a Richardson donor, but it was later cancelled after an agreement could not be reached. Meanwhile, men indicted in the Bernalillo County Metro Court scandal were involved in the early stages of both DOT projects, furthering the reasons for suspicion.

There are two possible scenarios here.

The first is that Richardson really wasn’t involved in the DOT projects, that he wasn’t consulted on who to select, that state employees who did award the contracts didn’t consider at all whether the bidders were donors to their bosses’ presidential campaign. Under this scenario, the change in the size of the DOT building would have been the result of a really big mistake – a realization late in the process that DOT hadn’t done a needs assessment and, once one was complete, a second realization that combining several buildings into one would require less hallway space and, overall, the size of the building could be cut.

The other potential scenario is that Richardson wanted to make sure a donor to his campaign was rewarded, first by getting the contract and later by getting an even sweeter deal by shrinking the public building and making more land available for private development.

Which is the truth? Either is possible. When it’s convenient, like when they’re addressing concerns that he’s out of the state campaigning most of the time, Richardson’s people assert that the governor is still intimately involved in the day-to-day operations of state government. When it’s convenient, as it was today, they assert he’s not all that involved.

What I know is this: A truly independent investigation, one that will consider Richardson’s involvement, is needed. There’s a reason state law prohibits prospective contractors from donating to elected officials during procurement processes: There’s the potential for the contributions to affect the selection of a contractor or the terms of an eventual contract. The fact that the state law probably doesn’t apply to Richardson’s federal campaign doesn’t change the fact that the appearance of impropriety exists.

State law acknowledges it. The fact that Richardson will not is disingenuous.