Has the Legislative ethics committee let Rep Peter Leishman (D – Good Ole Boys Network) off the hook?  Mr. Leishman was accused of using his legislative position to give him an advantage in a railroad operating agreement but the committee could not bring itself to suspect Rep Leishman under the circumstances and has recommended a letter of caution and no further action.

What circumstances? 

It starts with HB 613 a 2009 bill that Rep Leishman wrote which would create a committee to consider whether the state 

…shall study whether it would improve freight service, passenger service, or both to have the state acquire the remaining rail corridors in the state, particularly the Nashua-Concord corridor.

So why would Leishman want the state to control more track?  Could it be all the talk about a highly subsidized passenger rail service—that’s guaranteed taxpayer dollars to whoever is leasing that track that will prop up service whether its profitable or not?  Is it just because he owns Milford – Bennington Railroad and he’s well connected? Could it be that Leishman sits on the committee that votes on funding and leasing issues including those for rail transportation?  Could it be because he has to run on a few miles of track operated by a large competitor and it would make his life easier if he had the lease?

Why write that bill?

A man of conscience and integrity would not even propose such a piece of legislation given the potential for his personal enrichment?  He’d stay away from any situation that might suggest a conflict of interest.  But Rep Peter Leishamn is first and foremost, not such a man because he did it anyway. 

It gets more interesting.

According to David Hink, president of Pan Am railway (the competitor), Leishman’s Milford-Bennington apparently failed to seek renewal of its 10 year lease on a section of state owned track by July 2008.  That with no renewal deal in process by February 2009 other companies were now entitled to bid on the deal which would expire in July of 2009. 

So he says Pan Am Systems wanted a shot at the contract, and the Union Leader reported in July 2009 that Hink claims he contacted the NH commissioner of transportation George Campbell about his desire to submit a proposal.  But Fink says Campbell told him that he (Campbell)…

“…was currently seeking approval of his budget and that Representative Leishman’s membership on the House Finance Committee could adversely affect that budget if the commissioner were to cause any disturbances.” 

If that’s true what might those “disturbances be?” 

I’m guessing Democrat Rep Leishman might not take kindly to news of competition for the bid and Campbell must not have had an actual renewal agreement in hand.  So Campbell was worried he might get his budget harpooned if he accepted another  proposal now which would drive up the cost of any last minute renewal effort by Leishman. 

The UL also reports that few days after Pan Am claims to have questioned Campbell about submitting a proposal, finance Chair Marjorie Smith (also a democrat) told Campbell that Milford – Bennington’s contract was being renewed, shutting out Pan Am regardless of the terms of the previous contract as noted above.

Suspicious given the situation, but Leishman and Fink have apparently been at odds for some time, and being competitors that’s not unusual.  Of course Fink can’t write a bill that would permit the state to seize any track it wished (presumably under eminent domain laws) and then use the same suspicious no-bid process that re-leased track to Milford – Bennington for any track it had ‘acquired’ as a result of the commission HB 613 would create. 

Still not suspicious enough?

Commissioner Campbell testified before the ethics committee investigation, that he had expressed an objection to Leishman’s bill in April 2009 by posting a letter to the State Senate Transportation Committee, and that shortly after that, had been contacted by Rep Leishman to discuss the bill.

Campbell also testified that Leishman said he’d make the bill “go away” if Pan AM railway conveyed to Leishman certain trackage adjoining to his own, already leased to him by the state.

I guess George got his budget approved and felt comfortable making such a claim because Leishman denies it, calling it a complete fabrication.  Lord knows it’s rough enough telling the truth to an ethics committee about a guy who can mess with your budget, but making up a statement with those kinds of consequences takes some backbone.  I’m guessing George told the truth.

Campbell also testified that he communicated this offer to David Fink at Pan Am but Fink had no interest in it. 

Fink has testified that Campbell informed him that HB 613 would go away if he conveyed the trackage to Milford-Bennington. 

Rep Peter Burling, who was also present at that meeting with Fink and Campbell says he learned of the suggestion later but does not recall hearing it himself at the time Campbell told Fink.

So despite Leishman’s obvious conflict of interest, he wrote a bill he stood to benefit from personally.  Anecdotal evidence as well as ethics testimony shows it could have been used to coerce a deal that would benefit Rep Leishman.  But the preliminary investigation did not see clear and convincing evidence under the rules as written for improper conduct.  They also did not see a clear path to how HB 613 would necessarily benefit Rep Leishman more or less than any others with similar financial interest. 

Really? What are the rules?  He’s one of us, so we can’t see our way clear to press for more investigation because it will make us look bad?

This whole situation looks like a no-bid contract to a protected insider who may have exercised his legislative power and connections to protect his existing lease from competition and to coerce a private company into relinquishing trackage—or to have it taken and bid to someone else.  In what way does this not present a potential benefit to Leishman’s Company or suggest an ethics problem?

The man wrote a bill that could benefit him personally. He didn’t even have the sense to have some freshman do his dirty work for him.  That’s kind of arrogant don’t you think? And now he simply refutes their testimony, and that’s good enough for them?

If the ethics committee wants’ to be taken seriously, I think they need to do better than this.