In wondering
last Sunday whether the inflated cost of a St. Louis County Courts
project — from $100 million to nearly $130 million — was due to i
ncompetence or deceptiveness, we overlooked another possibility.
Political influence.
Consider
this timeline: On May 7, Alberici Construction, a bidder on the
courthouse project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to St. Louis
County Executive
Charlie A. Dooley. That same day the County Council chairman and vice chairman,
Kathleen Kelly Burkett and
Hazel Erby,
signed pledges at the request of officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to be
silent about the plan to spend extra public money on the project.
On
May 22, Clayco Construction, which is teamed with Alberici on bidding
for the project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to
Mayor Francis G. Slay. That same day, Mr. Slay’s campaign turned around and made a $10,000 campaign contribution to Mr. Dooley.
The
evening before, on May 21, the County Council had approved a request
from officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to spend an additional $29.5
million on the project, even though voters had approved spending only
$100 million on the project a year earlier.
Spokesmen for Mssrs.
Dooley and Slay assured us the donations had nothing to do with the
request for more money for the project. That was reassuring, because
we’d hate to think that the mayor — who doesn’t come up for re-election
until 2017 — had opened a money laundromat.
“Obviously not,” said Mac Scott, a spokesman for Mr. Dooley.
“Not in any way,” said Richard Callow, a campaign spokesman for Mr. Slay.
So why did
Mr. Slay contribute exactly the same amount his campaign received from
Clayco Construction to Mr. Dooley on the very day he got Clayco’s
donation?
“The mayor strongly believes that Charlie Dooley is good for St. Louis County,” Mr. Callow said.
Under
Missouri’s current anemic campaign ethics laws, these contributions are
legal. Committee-to-committee pass-throughs, done to fuzz up the source
of money, happen all the time. Campaign money buys influence.
The
other front-runners for the project — McCarthy Building Companies and
KCI Construction Co. — do not show up on campaign reports as having made
contributions to either Mr. Slay or Mr. Dooley this year.
The
Clayco-Alberici team’s contributions do not guarantee that those
companies will win the bid, either. Indeed, the companies may merely be
showing their support for the enlightened policies of Mr. Slay and/or
Mr. Dooley. But the timing is curious.
Garry Earls, the county’s
chief operating officer, sought confidentiality from the parties
involved in the attempt to approve an additional $29.5 million in
special obligation bonds. That lack of transparency raises suspicions
about other aspects, including the campaign contributions.
Voters
had already rejected a more extensive $120 million project in 2008 to
build a new St. Louis Family Court Building, refurbish the existing main
courthouse and perform various other building projects.
When they
were presented with a proposition in April 2012 to spend $100 million
to build the Family Court building and do some long-delayed and
necessary
work on the main courthouse, voters approved it.
Last
year’s proposition did not require a tax increase, which the earlier
proposal would have. Mr. Earls said that if the county had sought $130
million for the project last year, it would have required a tax hike.
That is the
key point. The same county officials who in 2010 said the budget was so
stressed that they’d have to close parks and cut jobs, were reluctant
to ask voters to approve higher taxes in 2012.
So they asked for
less money than it now turns out is needed. Mr. Earls said it was an
honest mistake; the work turned out to be more expensive than
anticipated. On the other hand, allowing for inflation, it’s about the
same as the 2008 project that voters turned down.
Read the rest of this story at:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-campaign-money-and-that-higher-cost-st-louis-county/article_14e5e748-14d7-5dae-a6b3-ca6f6d361fff.html
Compliments of Post Dispatch.
