The corrupt MTA
 

How these folks get to keep their jobs is beyond me. We often compared the union demands to the "realities" of the private sector. How does anyone square the following behavior with the "realities" of the private sector? Taking bribes is a crime. Most companies would fire a person for this type of stuff...

January 4, 2006
3 M.T.A. Officials Admit They Took Gifts Improperly

By SEWELL CHAN
Three officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have agreed to pay a total of $4,850 to settle charges that they accepted gifts improperly, the State Ethics Commission announced yesterday.

Since December 2004, the commission has charged 19 officials at the authority with breaking ethics rules. Last May, the authority adopted a "zero-tolerance policy" toward employees who receive gifts from companies and people who do business with the authority.

The most recent officials to be accused were Millard L. Seay, senior vice president for buses at New York City Transit, and Joseph J. Petrocelli, deputy vice president for finance and administration at M.T.A. Capital Construction, which oversees the Second Avenue subway project and other major building efforts.

Mr. Seay, who is known as Butch, agreed on Dec. 9 to pay $1,250 to settle charges that he accepted dinners and golf outings worth $633 from two contractors, Atlantic Detroit Diesel-Allison and Motor Coach Industries, on six occasions from 1999 to 2002.

Mr. Petrocelli agreed on Dec. 12 to pay $3,000 to settle charges that he accepted five meals worth $1,555 from two contractors, the Bechtel Corporation and Gannett Fleming, in 2002 and 2003, when he was overseeing East Side Access, a project to link the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal.

The third official, Richard C. Semenick, an assistant chief engineer at the Long Island Rail Road, agreed on Dec. 15 to pay $600 and admit that he accepted a meal worth $136.74 at a steak house in Garden City, N.Y., in March 2002 from the Plasser American Corporation, a contractor.

Mr. Semenick was charged in December 2004, and Mr. Seay and Mr. Petrocelli in November 2005. The authority's inspector general's office, which looked into the improper gifts, had referred their cases to the commission.

The commission also announced three other settlements involving state employees:

¶Laura Nowak, chairwoman of the Business Department at the College of Staten Island, part of the City University of New York, agreed on Dec. 20 to pay $5,600 and admit that she improperly accepted payment for appearing as an expert witness in a case before the State Court of Claims.

¶Larry Jacks, who retired as an analyst at the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance in June 2004, agreed on Dec. 20 to pay $500 to settle charges that he contacted the agency three times on behalf of a client in September and October 2004. State law prohibits former employees from appearing before their agencies within two years of leaving the jobs.

¶Clemente P. LaPietra, who retired as a program analyst at the State Higher Education Services Corporation in May 2004, agreed on Dec. 13 to pay $200 and admit that he contacted the corporation nine times in 2004 and 2005, after he retired, to discuss financial-aid issues on behalf of students at his new employer, Monroe College.



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Although I do not like the idea of taking bribes, these charges are BS.

Unless these meals were GIVEN to them, as in "here's a blank check, get what you want", I do not see the problem in contractors trying to schmooze potential clients.

BR, you make the comparison to the private sector with this. How do you think the private sector goes for jobs? They become friends with the decision makers that have influence in making the decisions of where these contracts go.

Going on a golf outing with contractors is nothing.


Now, OTOH, there needs to be a line drawn in the sand, just as we do with our politicians.

Dinner is nice, but if a contractor PAYS for an officials daughters wedding out of the "kindness" of his heart, we have to look further. But prosecuting these men on taking a few thousand in shmooze $$ is rediculous. Especially when it probably cost us more to prosecute than they got in the first place.

Waste of $$ and time.

It may seem a waste of time and money, but if these practices go unchecked, they only get worse.

In 1980, Abscam was conducted to root out bribery in Congress. Rules were formulated to inhibit influence-peddling.

Over the years, lobbying became increasingly sophisticated to circumvent these rules. I heard that some lobbying companies have a larger staff of ex-congressmen than that of the states they operate in.

Left unchecked, the inevitable result is...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/po...rtner=homepage

Things are different in the private sector, but these are public employees.l

It's ultimately "influence peddling."

Zip, I say again, how do you think they get jobs in the private sector?

I think more things of this nature have to be done as they are in the private sector, such as monetary rewards for excelent contract performance and the like.

There are several things that are out of alignment when it comes to city jobs that need to be addressed.

Let me give you one example. If a job is estimated to cost $1B and the contractor manages to get all the work done for half of that, if he is LUCKY, he may get that full $1B pricetag paid to him.

But regardless of whether or not he is lucky, the price offered for the next similar job will be reduced to the $500M that this one was completed at, regardless of differences or obsticals that may be encountered.

All government contracts and contractors are encouraged to spend every last dime of a contract fee or risk not being able to cover costs the next time they work for them.

We have seen by the way the TWU jumped up and screamed "gimme" at the MTA's surplus that any $$ that is leftover never goes into more work, or to the people that gave it in the first place, so there is no encouragement to make the job go faster/cheaper. So how is this rectified?


This is only an example of where the government sector and private sector have differences when it comes to work done. It is not directly related to the bribery issue originally posted, but it does show that simply restricting one practice in order to try to fix the whole shebang is not the best way to handle things like this.



One final thing. Although I really do not think that this was the case, what if these guys really WERE friends? Who is there to say that one guy paying for a dinner or a golf outing should be viewed as a crime?

Where is the line drawn, and is it a reasonable limit that has been declared?

Two wrongs don't make a right. The corruption of the MTA does not justify the um, optimistic, demands of the TWU. It just shows that both trying to fleece tax/farepayers for as much as they can.

Ultimately, life is "influence peddling". http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.png

I stated that the situation is different in the private sector.

I think more things of this nature have to be done as they are in the private sector, such as monetary rewards for excelent contract performance and the like. This was not a reward for work done. The money flowed in the opposite direction. The incentives you refer to are acceptable in the MTA. They are being used in the South Ferry IRT project.

Last May, the authority adopted a "zero-tolerance policy" toward employees who receive gifts from companies and people who do business with the authority. Public agencies have specific rules of conduct involving these situations. In NYC govt, there's the COIB.

In the private sector, I have had much experience with zero-tolerance policies. Several years ago, an employee in one of the Manhattan AT&T buildings was suspended for an argument with another employee. The argument involved the threat of violence, and he was fired. I had pulled many asses out of the flames for more serious work violations, but when I found out that the allegations were correct, I knew I would have a hard time winning the grievance because the company had a zero-tolerance policy concerning violence in the workplace.

I lost the case, and the dismissal stood.

I'll give you two contrasting examples of acceptiing gifts. When we were a monopoly and quasi-public company, the same code-of-conduct forbade us from accepting gifts from customers.

Once, after a large project was completed on time for a brokerage house, the customer sent my group a case of champagne. We knew we had to send it back, knowing that it might be taken as an insult.

On another occasion, we put in a new switching machine for Morgan Stanley at 1585 Bway. After the system was successfully cut into their network, there was a party on premises. We were invited and attended. That was acceptable.

People usually know when they are violating rules, and in the case of the MTA officials, they admitted that they were wrong - so I don't quite understand what your gripe is.

And my poit was to ask WHY is it different and HOW can it be changed to more resemble the private sector.

I knew what you said zip and I was not disagreeing with it.

This was not a reward for work done. The money flowed in the opposite direction. The incentives you refer to are acceptable in the MTA. They are being used in the South Ferry IRT project. I was not making a direct comparison, that is why I said so at the end Zip. I was just illustrating some of the differences that need to be rectified.

They are only starting to be used. But a lot of projects that come through, such as infrastructure, are still delt with by making sure you spend every last dime in the contract. Kind of a different flavor than the private sector.

Job performance does not guarantee you another job when it comes to government contracts.

Public agencies have specific rules of conduct involving these situations. In NYC govt, there's the COIB. Appreciated. I will read it later.

In the private sector, I have had much experience with zero-tolerance policies. Several years ago, an employee in one of the Manhattan AT&T buildings was suspended for an argument with another employee. The argument involved the threat of violence, and he was fired. I had pulled many asses out of the flames for more serious work violations, but when I found out that the allegations were correct, I knew I would have a hard time winning the grievance because the company had a zero-tolerance policy concerning violence in the workplace.

I lost the case, and the dismissal stood. I understand that, but this is a wee bit different that threatening to hurt someone at the workplace. Something like that can cost the company lots of money in litegation if they do not have a policy in place to counter it.

I understand the context that you were using it for. I know there are hard lines drawn on some issues....

I'll give you two contrasting examples of acceptiing gifts. When we were a monopoly and quasi-public company, the same code-of-conduct forbade us from accepting gifts from customers.

Once, after a large project was completed on time for a brokerage house, the customer sent my group a case of champagne. We knew we had to send it back, knowing that it might be taken as an insult.

On another occasion, we put in a new switching machine for Morgan Stanley at 1585 Bway. After the system was successfully cut into their network, there was a party on premises. We were invited and attended. That was acceptable.

People usually know when they are violating rules, and in the case of the MTA officials, they admitted that they were wrong - so I don't quite understand what your gripe is.
The second is more like what these guys were doing.

It was definitely a gift, but it was not like it was being given right out. I also know of a lot of people that have, although they have work connections, gone out and paid for lunch on the companies dollar.

This gets EXTREMELY bad when you start going legal, but that is another profession entirely.

I guess this is an issue that gets really hard to draw a strait line to enforce on. It is sort of like designing with concrete.

A lot of it is engineering judgement.





BUT, back to BR's original post. I do not think, in the SLIGHTEST bit, that this kind of thing has any comparable weight to a large bribery scandal.

If you want that, come on over to Hoboken where they do it right... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/eek.png