As US Attorney, Chris
Christie had the opportunity to witness the rough and tumble of New Jersey and
New York politics. This territory is the former home of boss politics including
the Hague machine of New Jersey and Tammany Hall in New York City. They were
synonymous with patronage and corruption.
And while the big
names of corruption are long gone, the remnants and memories linger.
I suspect Chris
Christie understood the lessons of the past and applied them well. As US Attorney
he went after those politicians who misused the public trust and rapidly became
the Elliot Ness of New Jersey politics. Clearly, he was going to do what no predecessor
could and that was to wipe out political corruption.
This became his path
to the Governorship and he continued his aggressive pursuit against what he
called “shadowy governments” – citadels of government power where unelected
officials could dispense money and power with little accountability. The
pursuit of justice expanded to include government unions and bureaucrats using
abusive power over the public purse.
But, unlike Elliot
Ness, Christie was neither modest nor retiring in his manner. No, he was the
bull elephant who trampled the peoples’ enemies and took regular wipes at
anyone including reporters or citizens who dared ask questions that he deemed inappropriate.
Was he a bully?
Absolutely, but he was our bully and he was matching the power of good against the
power of evil. So it’s all right.
To many, he was the resurrection of Theodore Roosevelt.
Immediately, he became
an immensely popular political figure and his style was fully embraced not just
by the political faithful including an increasing number of democrats but also
by the national media housed in New York and Washington. He was their hero as
well and he was a Republican.
This element of the
media feeds daily on the politics of politics and what could be more attractive
than a national collision between two giants – Chris Christie and Hillary
Clinton.
But while Christie was
dazzling the pundits with the bluster of his right hand, they failed to notice
what he was doing on the left. And
therein lies the Christie problem. While going after the smaller “shadow
governments”, little attention was being paid to the biggest of them all: the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey. With a budget exceeding $7 billion of federal and state monies it had
not only money and power but it lent itself to easy control and operated in the
shadows of public scrutiny.
By way of background,
this was also the former home of Robert Moses who almost singlehandedly
developed New York City and was said to have more power than the Mayor or
Governor. He was truly an
appointed czar.
It is curious that so
few paid attention to Governor Christies’ highly political appointments to the
Port Authority nor to his veto of legislation requiring more financial and
policy transparency. After
all, if he did not like the reform bill, where was his proposal?
Nor was there much
attention when episodes of abuse were revealed including the firing of a
prosecutor who indicted one of his political allies, the closing of a TV
station that ran an unfavorable story, or the elimination of funding for a
project favored by a University professor who ruled against Christie’s
reapportionment plan. Even serious questions of mismanagement of Sandy funds
were pushed aside.
No, the politics of
politics was way more important than the substance of governance and that is
why the national media focuses and advances the show horses of politics rather
than the diligent and purposeful efforts of the work horses.
In this environment,
Christie could thrive. The Port Authority rapidly became his political
playground and the governance system had the one ingredient that is the milk of
corruption – very, very little oversight.
While the Governor’s
office dazzled the public at the capitol, they were also dealing with
development projects at the Port Authority dripping with money and endless
potential for campaign contributions which are so vital to the launching of a
Presidential bid.
And what setup could
be better? The Governor appoints the Chairperson as well as members to the
Board. Further, the organization
legitimatized conflicts of interest.
How is it that a reform Governor would appoint a prominent New Jersey
attorney as chairman of the authority knowing full well that his law firm regularly
lobbied the authority for development monies on behalf of its clients? Anyone with an IQ approaching room
temperature knows this is a blatant conflict of interest. But for an anti
corruption crusader to not only make such an appointment and then pack the Port
Authority with his political operatives strongly suggests incompetence or
dishonesty.
But like all scandals,
this did not occur in a vacuum. It was clearly an event waiting to be
discovered. Christie did not invent the murky environment of the Port Authority
nor did he create the centralization of power concentrated in the Governor.
That all preceded him and likely was home to considerably prior abuse by both
parties.
Nevertheless, how
could such a system of concentrated authority not draw more attention much
earlier? Here we have a Governor empowered to appoint the Attorney General –
the chief legal authority of the state and have virtual control over this
immense Port Authority.
Where was the
independent financial oversight for both the federal as well as state monies?
Where were the legal checks and balances?
Where was the Governor
of New York and his appointees to the Authority?
And there will be an
increasing number of questions involving the Hurricane Sandy money. Where was
the federal financial oversight relative to the hundreds of millions of dollars
given by national taxpayers?
Why is it that we were
doused with endless pictures of a GOP Governor embracing a Democrat President
with a huge supply of federal hurricane dollars and endless campaign rhetoric
of bi-partisan cooperation but not one word about the legitimacy of how that
money was spent?
In all instances –
state and federal – where was the oversight – both in terms of financial as
well as management?
As to the balance of
the scandal, it will no doubt widen and steadily become increasingly apparent
that that all roads lead to money and power and, ultimately to Christie. Will
he fall? That is most likely.
But that is neither
the sole tragedy nor the end of the story. The latter will only come when we
respect and insist on competency over celebrity and insist on the imposition of
honest standards of management in public service.
P.S.
The vast sprawl of the
federal government has not had a major overhaul since the Hoover Commission was
formed by President Harry Truman. This bi-partisan effort involving two
Presidents helped open the door of cooperation between Presidents and is one of
the key examples cited in the widely acclaimed book, The President’s Club.
Today, we are very
much in need of bi-partisan cooperation at the very highest level and we are
also in need of serious management overhaul of government. This would be a
perfect time for President Obama to reach out to former Governor and
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney for the purpose of heading a similar type of
commission. Frankly, we need Romney’s management skill sets and we need the
President to restore trust in the competency of government.
If the Christie
scandal is to have any meaning it is that we must enhance at all levels of
government an appreciation of divided power, true transparency and oversight,
and an appreciation for the quality of leadership over the celebration of
sizzle.
Leadership can make it
happen.
