Rating the MTA’s Chief: More Than a Few Doubts

The public has been left with a sorry set of options on how to view the latest from Joseph Drew, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s CEO.

The issue involves the selection of a construction manager for the extension of the Red Line subway into East Los Angeles. It began in October when Drew ignored a $375,000 taxpayer-funded panel of experts and settled instead on a politically connected group, Metro East Consultants, that had been ranked dead last by the panel. Drew’s choice would have given the $65-million contract to a team with ties to influential MTA board member Richard Alatorre.

And then the choice of Metro East rightly hit the fan. An MTA committee panel excoriated Drew and refused to support him. The MTA inspector general launched an investigation. And MTA board member Gloria Molina, who has clashed with Alatorre repeatedly, played a powerful trump when three Eastside members of the U.S. House--Xavier Becerra, Esteban Torres and Lucille Roybal-Allard--joined her in chorus against Drew’s choice.

Meanwhile, it was reported that one member of the Metro East team had been sued for allegedly overbilling the MTA in the past.

Now Drew has finally withdrawn his recommendation because, he says, the team he had favored had failed to disclose certain legal troubles and a political contribution to an MTA board member. Drew and the MTA’s chief auditor suggest they were misled by the authority’s contracting process, which they claimed is seriously flawed and lacks internal controls. The auditor rebuked the MTA’s internal system for reviewing bids, saying that the possibility of uncovering deception is “left mainly to chance.” That, Drew and the auditor suggest, left them with bad information.

But the new explanation appears weak at best. This was not a situation in which internal MTA staff pressed Drew to pick Metro East all along. In fact, the outside panel of experts had provided Drew with another, qualified choice for the contract. And it was Drew, largely on his own, who dismissed their expertise and picked Metro East.

That brings us back to the unenviable options on how to view Drew: (1) He is less than forthcoming when he suggests that he was unaware of the legal problems and other questions involving the Metro East team; (2) he is being forthright, doesn’t know the players and ignored a panel of experts without a plausible reason; or (3) after nearly a year either as interim or permanent CEO, Drew and his chief auditor have finally determined that MTA contract reviewing is seriously flawed. What a slate to pick from.