Any lobbyist will attest to the fact that the business is all about relationships. That’s what lobbying firms are selling when they bid for contracts — relationships with legislators, with their staffers or with employees of state agencies.
And more often than in perhaps any other industry, the relationships lobbyists sell are personal ones, sometimes going back years. To a lobbying firm, such connections are incredibly valuable because they are so difficult for a competitor to manufacture or replicate.
Which is why when a member of the General Assembly privately hires a well-known Capitol lobbyist, it should leave other lobbyists shaking their heads. It’s not a good sign. If a senator trusts a member of the lobbying community enough to actually hire her himself, it’s a pretty sure bet he trusts her enough to listen to her views on pending legislation.
Like every other member of the General Assembly, State Sen. John W. Fonfara (D-Hartford) has every right to earn a living outside of the Capitol.
He has done so the old fashioned way, founding his own company, a billboard advertising firm called Face Value, from his home in Hartford in November 2005.
Last month, Fonfara won a contract with the city of Norwich to refurbish and sell advertising on four city billboards.
To assist his company in scoring the contract, Fonfara hired Jude Malone, of the Hartford lobbying firm Sullivan & LeShane.
That his company won the contract is only one sign that Fonfara made a smart hire. Besides being a native of Norwich, Malone has helped drive local Democratic candidates into the mayor’s office, city council and state legislature. She knows her way around town.
She’s also been lobbying at the state Capitol, by her own memory, for 17 years. In discussing her client, Fonfara, Malone doubted the relationship would have any effect on Fonfara’s work at the Capitol. She attested to the senator’s high standard of ethics, saying he drew a clear line between his work as a businessman and his service to the state.
Unique Situation
She pointed out that the contract was small and only for municipal work; it’s not as though Fonfara was hiring her to work on his behalf in the halls of the General Assembly.
Fonfara is not being accused of any sort of impropriety. Many state legislators work for companies that employ lobbyists. Some, like House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero, a partner at the Hartford law firm of Brown Rudnick, have discussed at length with state officials the steps needed to avoid ethical violations.
But the Hartford senator’s situation distinguishes itself because he personally decided which of the many influencers he sees every day to hire. It’s possible that other companies with employees serving in the legislature ask the advice of those employees when hiring lobbyists. Perhaps the powers that be at Northeast Utilities, for instance, ask state Sen. John A. Kissel (R-Enfield) what he thinks of Jay Malcynsky and Fritz Conway when it comes time to extend the company’s contract with Gaffney Bennett & Assoc., being that Kissel is an attorney for NU. (It would probably be a smart move, given how much time legislators spend with lobbyists.)
But for other lobbyists — particularly those competing with Malone for Fonfara’s votes — his hiring of Malone must be viewed as another arrow in Sullivan & LeShane’s quiver. One of Malone’s areas of focus is the Finance Committee, of which Fonfara is a vice chairman. Woe to the lobbyists who need to convince Fonfara that their proposals are more important than that of his employee. Does Malone think she would have a big advantage in that situation?
“That’s for somebody else to answer,” she said.
Fonfara, through his press agent, opted not to discuss the matter.
But one could certainly imagine the relationship helping Malone’s firm not only on pending bills, but in snapping up more business. To a potential client looking for a nod from the Finance Committee, wouldn’t Sullivan & LeShane have a leg up in getting the work?
Here’s a sample pitch the firm could give: If a committee leader trusts us enough to hire us, shouldn’t you?
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Contractors Working To Keep Trade Info From Public
Like the rest of us, the business community is happy to hold state government accountable for the way it spends the public’s tax dollars.
But what happens when the state contracts work out to a business? How accountable should that business be held for their own use of taxpayer money?
This is being debated because the state Department of Social Services has begun receiving Freedom of Information requests, beginning in 2004, for information regarding the Medicaid services provided by managed care organizations (MCOs).
Three companies and a non-profit group won contracts totaling more than $700 million to collectively operate Medicaid in Connecticut: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Health Net, WellCare Health Plans and Community Health Network of Connecticut.
But advocates for low-income people in the state –- i.e. Medicaid recipients -– would like details about how those plans are operated; for instance, how much they are paying service providers. Not to mention whether little kids are being stiffed out of medical care.
Three of the four MCOs (all but WellCare) fought an initial request for information on the rates paid to doctors, but they seemed to meet rebuke wherever they turned. Gov. M. Jodi Rell ordered the rates released. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal agreed. A suit in Superior Court to block the release failed. And after the rates had already been given out, the Freedom of Information Commission ruled against the companies as well.
It seemed like a sound beating for the MCOs, and one that might push the General Assembly to cast more operations of state contractors beneath the public’s purview.
Enter Keith J. Stover.
Trade Secrets
The bow-tied lobbyist for Robinson & Cole represents all MCOs in Connecticut, probably one of the biggest contracts around, and he has been making the case that if his clients are made to hand over further information –- like the criteria the companies use to set rates –- they would be forgoing a competitive advantage. That criteria is proprietary information, he says, which shouldn’t be disclosed.
Not only that, but what about other state contractors? The FOI Commission ruled that the MCOs’ information relative to their Medicaid operation should be public because it was part of their role in a “governmental function.”
But what about providing IT help or paving a highway? Are those governmental functions? One provision in the legislature (part of one of three bills on the issue) would make companies receiving contracts of $250,000 or above susceptible to public inquiries, lowered from the current $2.5 million.
“There are broad implications across the community of state contractors,” Stover said.
With that argument in hand, Stover produced the first victory for the MCOs since the pursuit of information began, getting the General Assembly’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee to accept a proposal exempting numerous records from FOI.
That turned the tables on those seeking more disclosure.
Jane McNichol, executive director of the Legal Assistance Resource Center in Hartford, has been one of the key advocates in getting information out of the MCOs.
“This is a $700 million program that is state and federally funded…it certainly requires scrutiny,” she said.
McNichol’s organization employs Betty Gallo and Co., specialists in progressive causes, and through other bills out there for which they will push, both were ready to stick with the FOI Commission’s decisions, rather than accept the Insurance Committee bill — at least after Stover was done with it.
For its part, the FOI Commission would be happy to see its decision stand, should no new legislation pass.
“We feel very good about the decisions that we issued — that current law supports the fact the managed care organizations when they are fulfilling their contractual role in regards to Medicare and Medicaid are subject to FOI requests,” said commission director Colleen M. Murphy.
She agreed with Stover on one point: The issue won’t just be about MCOs in the future.
“We weren’t specifically focusing on the MCOs,” she said.
“There are probably other companies down the road that will be affected.”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
But what happens when the state contracts work out to a business? How accountable should that business be held for their own use of taxpayer money?
This is being debated because the state Department of Social Services has begun receiving Freedom of Information requests, beginning in 2004, for information regarding the Medicaid services provided by managed care organizations (MCOs).
Three companies and a non-profit group won contracts totaling more than $700 million to collectively operate Medicaid in Connecticut: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Health Net, WellCare Health Plans and Community Health Network of Connecticut.
But advocates for low-income people in the state –- i.e. Medicaid recipients -– would like details about how those plans are operated; for instance, how much they are paying service providers. Not to mention whether little kids are being stiffed out of medical care.
Three of the four MCOs (all but WellCare) fought an initial request for information on the rates paid to doctors, but they seemed to meet rebuke wherever they turned. Gov. M. Jodi Rell ordered the rates released. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal agreed. A suit in Superior Court to block the release failed. And after the rates had already been given out, the Freedom of Information Commission ruled against the companies as well.
It seemed like a sound beating for the MCOs, and one that might push the General Assembly to cast more operations of state contractors beneath the public’s purview.
Enter Keith J. Stover.
Trade Secrets
The bow-tied lobbyist for Robinson & Cole represents all MCOs in Connecticut, probably one of the biggest contracts around, and he has been making the case that if his clients are made to hand over further information –- like the criteria the companies use to set rates –- they would be forgoing a competitive advantage. That criteria is proprietary information, he says, which shouldn’t be disclosed.
Not only that, but what about other state contractors? The FOI Commission ruled that the MCOs’ information relative to their Medicaid operation should be public because it was part of their role in a “governmental function.”
But what about providing IT help or paving a highway? Are those governmental functions? One provision in the legislature (part of one of three bills on the issue) would make companies receiving contracts of $250,000 or above susceptible to public inquiries, lowered from the current $2.5 million.
“There are broad implications across the community of state contractors,” Stover said.
With that argument in hand, Stover produced the first victory for the MCOs since the pursuit of information began, getting the General Assembly’s Insurance and Real Estate Committee to accept a proposal exempting numerous records from FOI.
That turned the tables on those seeking more disclosure.
Jane McNichol, executive director of the Legal Assistance Resource Center in Hartford, has been one of the key advocates in getting information out of the MCOs.
“This is a $700 million program that is state and federally funded…it certainly requires scrutiny,” she said.
McNichol’s organization employs Betty Gallo and Co., specialists in progressive causes, and through other bills out there for which they will push, both were ready to stick with the FOI Commission’s decisions, rather than accept the Insurance Committee bill — at least after Stover was done with it.
For its part, the FOI Commission would be happy to see its decision stand, should no new legislation pass.
“We feel very good about the decisions that we issued — that current law supports the fact the managed care organizations when they are fulfilling their contractual role in regards to Medicare and Medicaid are subject to FOI requests,” said commission director Colleen M. Murphy.
She agreed with Stover on one point: The issue won’t just be about MCOs in the future.
“We weren’t specifically focusing on the MCOs,” she said.
“There are probably other companies down the road that will be affected.”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
City's Lobbyist Search Uncloaks Wide Fee Structure
Reliability. Integrity. Decorum.
Nine firms who applied for a two-plus year lobbying contract with the City of Stamford presented themselves as pillars of essentially the same values. In neatly printed letters, accompanied by lobbyists’ résumés, each promised to be a diligent, honorable servant in persuading policymakers on the city’s behalf.
But from the Stamford proposals, it’s clear not everyone puts the same price tag on their work. Not even close.
City Needs
The customer in this case, Stamford, has a legislative agenda that includes getting more state money for education and transportation projects, and solving its blackout-susceptible electricity infrastructure. Coming off a one-year contract with Elizabeth “Betsy” Gara and Associates, it received nine proposals by the Nov. 9 deadline for a government affairs contract that, once signed, would run through the end of the current legislative session and include all of 2008 and 2009.
Once the bids were in, five Stamford officials scored them independently, on the firm’s understanding of the city’s needs, experience, organization and cost.
So while the price wasn’t the only measure, it’s certainly the most quantifiable. Here were the bid amounts, from lowest to highest:
Elizabeth “Betsy” Gara & Assoc.: $90,000
TCORS Capitol Group: $95,400
The Kowalski Group: $122,854
Sullivan & LeShane: $150,000
Evans & Assoc.: $163,500
Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc.: $180,000
Murtha Cullina: $180,000
Brown Rudnick: $198,000
Camilliere, Cloud & Kennedy: $225,000
So not only was Gara the incumbent but in bidding $90,000 she offered the lowest price.
“We were confident we had done a good job,” Gara said in an interview.
That showed in her proposal, where the former Connecticut Business & Industry Association lobbyist detailed 15 positive legislative happenings for Stamford during her work for the city, including the passage of legislation giving towns more control over blighted properties and allowing them to conceal homeland security-related information.
When it came to price, Gara said she simply offered what she had been paid for the first year — $30,000 — and multiplied it by three.
“It wasn’t at all part of the strategy, it just seemed to be fair given the work,” she said.
Other firms bet they could get a lot more. For instance: The team of Anthony D. Camilliere, Christopher R. Cloud and Brendan J. Kennedy bid two-and-a-half times what Gara offered for her four-person team.
This didn’t seem to pay off. When it came time to scoring, the nearly quarter million dollar bid from Camilliere, Cloud & Kennedy finished sixth, ahead of only Kowalski, TCORS and — bringing up the rear — Evans & Assoc.
Another factor may have hurt the Camilliere crowd as well. Because of Stamford’s interest in revamping its electricity supply, Stamford was wary of hiring a firm with energy companies as clients, lest their priorities be subjugated.
Four of the firms -– Gara, Gaffney Bennett, Murtha Cullina and Sullivan & LeShane -– were invited in for interviews the week before Christmas. Robert L. Ruszkowski, purchasing agent, took notes.
Gaffney Bennett wasn’t an ideal choice because the firm represents Exxon Mobil Corp. and Northeast Utilities.
Though Murtha Cullina represented no energy companies, “a key member of the team was late,” Ruszkowski wrote. Isn’t showing up on time the first rule of a job interview? Points deducted.
That left Gara against Sullivan & LeShane. Though Gara offered the best price, Ruszkowski indicated that he was not pleased with the progress of the city’s funding proposals through the state Department of Transportation. He also wondered if Stamford needed a larger firm.
All five reviewers gave Sullivan & LeShane a score in the 90s. The firm asked for $40,000 this year, $50,000 for 2008 and $60,000 for 2009, making it $60,000 more pricey than Gara, but still less so than most others.
After the interview, Ruszkowski wrote, “This firm seems to have major connections in Hartford.” It was the strongest endorsement he gave anyone. Sullivan & LeShane won the contract and will officially be handed it shortly.
In an interview later, Ruszkowski put the Sullivan & LeShane choice simply: “They have very good access to the Governor’s office. But price was also an issue.”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Nine firms who applied for a two-plus year lobbying contract with the City of Stamford presented themselves as pillars of essentially the same values. In neatly printed letters, accompanied by lobbyists’ résumés, each promised to be a diligent, honorable servant in persuading policymakers on the city’s behalf.
But from the Stamford proposals, it’s clear not everyone puts the same price tag on their work. Not even close.
City Needs
The customer in this case, Stamford, has a legislative agenda that includes getting more state money for education and transportation projects, and solving its blackout-susceptible electricity infrastructure. Coming off a one-year contract with Elizabeth “Betsy” Gara and Associates, it received nine proposals by the Nov. 9 deadline for a government affairs contract that, once signed, would run through the end of the current legislative session and include all of 2008 and 2009.
Once the bids were in, five Stamford officials scored them independently, on the firm’s understanding of the city’s needs, experience, organization and cost.
So while the price wasn’t the only measure, it’s certainly the most quantifiable. Here were the bid amounts, from lowest to highest:
Elizabeth “Betsy” Gara & Assoc.: $90,000
TCORS Capitol Group: $95,400
The Kowalski Group: $122,854
Sullivan & LeShane: $150,000
Evans & Assoc.: $163,500
Gaffney, Bennett & Assoc.: $180,000
Murtha Cullina: $180,000
Brown Rudnick: $198,000
Camilliere, Cloud & Kennedy: $225,000
So not only was Gara the incumbent but in bidding $90,000 she offered the lowest price.
“We were confident we had done a good job,” Gara said in an interview.
That showed in her proposal, where the former Connecticut Business & Industry Association lobbyist detailed 15 positive legislative happenings for Stamford during her work for the city, including the passage of legislation giving towns more control over blighted properties and allowing them to conceal homeland security-related information.
When it came to price, Gara said she simply offered what she had been paid for the first year — $30,000 — and multiplied it by three.
“It wasn’t at all part of the strategy, it just seemed to be fair given the work,” she said.
Other firms bet they could get a lot more. For instance: The team of Anthony D. Camilliere, Christopher R. Cloud and Brendan J. Kennedy bid two-and-a-half times what Gara offered for her four-person team.
This didn’t seem to pay off. When it came time to scoring, the nearly quarter million dollar bid from Camilliere, Cloud & Kennedy finished sixth, ahead of only Kowalski, TCORS and — bringing up the rear — Evans & Assoc.
Another factor may have hurt the Camilliere crowd as well. Because of Stamford’s interest in revamping its electricity supply, Stamford was wary of hiring a firm with energy companies as clients, lest their priorities be subjugated.
Four of the firms -– Gara, Gaffney Bennett, Murtha Cullina and Sullivan & LeShane -– were invited in for interviews the week before Christmas. Robert L. Ruszkowski, purchasing agent, took notes.
Gaffney Bennett wasn’t an ideal choice because the firm represents Exxon Mobil Corp. and Northeast Utilities.
Though Murtha Cullina represented no energy companies, “a key member of the team was late,” Ruszkowski wrote. Isn’t showing up on time the first rule of a job interview? Points deducted.
That left Gara against Sullivan & LeShane. Though Gara offered the best price, Ruszkowski indicated that he was not pleased with the progress of the city’s funding proposals through the state Department of Transportation. He also wondered if Stamford needed a larger firm.
All five reviewers gave Sullivan & LeShane a score in the 90s. The firm asked for $40,000 this year, $50,000 for 2008 and $60,000 for 2009, making it $60,000 more pricey than Gara, but still less so than most others.
After the interview, Ruszkowski wrote, “This firm seems to have major connections in Hartford.” It was the strongest endorsement he gave anyone. Sullivan & LeShane won the contract and will officially be handed it shortly.
In an interview later, Ruszkowski put the Sullivan & LeShane choice simply: “They have very good access to the Governor’s office. But price was also an issue.”
Jonathan O’Connell is a Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
