In order to keep the pots of gold at each side of the patronage rainbow carefully balanced, the DRPA unofficially decreed that insurance brokers from New Jersey and Pennsylvania who collected commissions from authority business had to equally share the wealth. If one broker made more than the other, it had to split the difference with the firm that made less.
For example, last year Philadelphia's Graham Co. collected $620,625 in commissions, but Willis of New Jersey only collected $492,294. So Graham paid Willis $64,166 to "true up" the difference. (Yes, that's the term used. Ironic, no?) These amounts are in addition to the millions in premiums that the two firms collect thanks to doing business with the DRPA.
This year, something about "true up" didn't ring true. Graham balked at paying Willis its cut, and two DRPA board members are calling for an investigation to determine if the practice is even legal.
Since the idea was dreamed up six years ago in the offices of the politically connected law firm Ballard Spahr - according to a letter from DRPA chairman John Matheussen to board member and Pennsylvania Treasurer Rob McCord - making sure it was legal should have been high on the list of things to check before proceeding.
Instead, Matheussen wrote, the "overall goal" was to balance the contracts between brokers from the two states. Translation: whack up the pie.
While this investigation proceeds, the DRPA might want to rethink its mission:
The "goal" is not to sprinkle spoils across the region. Goal 1 is to maintain the bridges in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. Goal 2 is to collect in tolls only what is necessary to achieve Goal 1. Anything more and expect to "true up" with angry toll-payers.
