Todd Stottlemyer, one of Gov. McDonnell's unseated appointees to MWAA
by James A. Bacon
There’s been a fascinating new development in the politics of the Rail-to-Dulles project, and I frankly don’t know what to make of it. I’ll provide the background. Perhaps readers can fill in the blanks. Governor Bob McDonnell issued a press release yesterday blasting Democrats in the House of Delegates for blocking the emergency enactment of a bill that would allow Virginia to seat two new board members to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the entity empowered to manage the $6 billion Rail-to-Dulles project.
“The move … is contrary to federal law and delays the seating of our new representatives during a time when important project decisions are pending before MWAA,” the governor said in the prepared statement. “Congress voted to reform the authority. The President signed the bill. based on that bipartisan legislation, Virginia should have a greater number of seats on the board now. It is the responsibility of our legislature to implement those reforms as soon as practical.”
Caren Merrick, Gov. McDonnell's other unseated appointee to MWAA
The controversy arises from decisions made by the MWAA board — first, to build an underground METRO station at Dulles airport, and then to mandate a union Project Labor Agreement for Phase 2 of the project, both of which could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the project. Because the added costs would be paid by users of the Dulles Toll Road, the actions created a political firestorm. Many Northern Virginians objected to such critical decisions being made by an unelected board dominated by appointees from Maryland and Washington, D.C. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-10, pushed legislation through Congress that would increase Virginia’s representation on the federally created authority.
MWAA opposed Wolf’s legislation. And when the law was passed and McDonnell appointed Virginia’s two new members — Todd Stottlemyer and Caren Merrick — MWAA would not seat them last month on the grounds that “the law is not operable until Virginia and the District approve changes to the ‘governing MWAA compact.'” (For details, see this past post.)
House Bill 252, submitted by Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, made the necessary changes to state law. All but three of the House’s 32 Democrats objected to the emergency aspect of the legislation. Reports Anita Kumar with the Washington Post:
Democrats, who hold 32 of the House’s 100 seats, balked at passing the bill with a provision that would have allowed it to be signed into law immediately. In a statement, House Democrats said they support the Metro project and adding more Virginia voices to the board but they opposed the process.
Emergency legislation requires 80% approval, therefore 29 “no” votes from 29 Democrats were sufficient to block the bill. All Republicans voted in favor.
I don’t take the Democrats’ argument at face value. There is more to the story than appears in Kumar’s article. What’s wrong with enacting emergency legislation, which is provided for in the Virginia Constitution? Why would anyone oppose getting Virginia’s two additional board members on the MWAA board ASAP? Democrats assuredly have their reasons — I just can’t divine what they are.
The only clues come from Richmond Sunlight. On Jan. 11, the bill sailed through the Transportation Committee 22-0, with all seven Democrats voting in favor. On Jan. 18, Joe May amended the bill to delete the emergency clause. Later in the day, he withdrew the amendment. Then Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville, motioned to re-refer the bill to the Transportation Committee, but the motion was rejected. The next day, the bill was put up for a vote by the full House and was rejected in a 71 to 29 vote.
Meanwhile, the same bill awaits consideration by the state Senate Local Government Committee.
Every Republican supported the bill. All but three Democrats opposed it. At some point between the Transportation Committee vote and the full House vote, the issue became polarized along party lines. What happened? I don’t know. I would love to find out.
Update: Garren Shipley with the Virginia GOP says the Dems are protecting their union buddies. In an email blast he sent out today:
David Englin made it perfectly clear what was going on when he tweeted from the floor:
House just removed emergency clause from MWAA bill, virtually ensuring passage tomorrow. Victory for@VAHouseDems and friends in Labor.
Translation: By removing the emergency clause, Democrats bought their union friends another few months of public funding without accountability.
I’m not sure where Shipley gets the part about “another few months of public funding.” MWAA does not fund the unions. The issue is MWAA’s mandate that bidders on Phase 2 of the project sign a Project Labor Agreement requiring that all hiring go through union halls. Here’s my question: Will MWAA be making any decisions between now and July 1 that lock in the PLA mandate?
More confirmation that the PLA was key to Democratic opposition: In reviewing the WaPo coverage of this issue, I see that Anita Kumar quoted Englin in a previous article as follows: “Part of the concern with positioning new appointees to revisit project labor agreements is that would cause further delay on a project that is critical to Northern Virginia’s economy.”
