By Chris Reed

Last month’s Los Angeles Times’ bombshell about the state bullet-train project could scarcely have made those in charge of the California High-Speed Rail Authority look worse. The Times reported that in determining who would be chosen to build the first segment of the project from Madera to Fresno, a rail authority committee — after a long, well-publicized public hearing — decided to emphasize competence and design skills by ruling that only the three contractors rated highest in this area would be considered. But the rules were subsequently changed with the bare minimum of publicity. The result was the authority’s favored bidder was the one with the cheapest bid. It was Sylmar-based Tutor Perini — a consortium which had the worst “technical” ranking of any bidder and would have been ineligible under the original rules.

A later Fresno Bee report confirmed the Times’ findings.

The letter-of-the-law defense, delivered righteously

But the rail authority decided the best defense was a good offense. New CEO Jeff Morales was sharply critical of the reporting by the Times. The authority’s argument, boiled down, was that everything it had done was done in satisfaction with authority rules and state laws. Since what was done was by the book, Morales argued, it was outrageous for anyone to suggest there was anything wrong with the decision. Everything was “careful and transparent.”

CHSRA board chairman Dan Richard also offered this critique, suggesting routine decision-making was being depicted as scandalous by out-of-control journalists.

But as Morris Brown detailed on Fox & Hounds, the decision to emphasize technical competence in picking a contractor was done in high-profile fashion, while the the decision to de-emphasize technical competence was buried in a 150-page addendum that was posted on the authority’s website — with no acknowledgement that a major change had been made.

The wrong bunch to claim the moral high ground

But Morales’ and Richard’s strategy of attack isn’t just misleading, based on the background provided by Morris Brown. There’s also this larger context: No state agency in California has less claim to the moral high ground than the California High-Speed Rail Authority. It narrowly won passage of $9.95 billion in state bond fund seed money from state voters in November 2008 after failing to meet a state law requiring that a business plan for the project be made public before the vote.

Within days after the vote, the plan was released — and one of its key provisions was based on the assumption that private investors could be attracted if they were given a ridership guarantee. But such a guarantee would have violated the state law that banned further California taxpayer subsidies of the project. (If ridership guarantees to investors are not met, taxpayers would have to pay investors.)

That is the original sin of the bullet train debate — the rail authority keeping this damning detail from the public.

In the years since, claims and promises made by the rail authority on the bullet train have proven to be grossly wrong — and all in ways that make the project worse. The total project cost is far higher. The individual ticket cost is going to be higher. The number of jobs that will be created is lower. The environmental benefits won’t show up for decades, if then.

But most of all, there’s this: What the CHSRA is building simply isn’t a statewide bullet train.

Like Tony Soprano complaining about crime coverage

The train won’t come even close to connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes, as mandated in the 2008 ballot measure providing the bond seed money. Quentin Kopp, the former state senator and judge who is considered the father of the state’s bullet train dream, is right when he says what’s being contemplated isn’t what he and other original advocates proposed. Instead, it’s a really fast train from Fresno to the northern edge of Los Angeles County, linked to regular rail in Silicon Valley and the Los Angeles metropolitan rail system.

From this perspective, the idea that rail authority honchos Jeff Morales and Dan Richard think they have the stature to lecture state journalists on the problems with their coverage is absurd. It’s like Tony Soprano complaining about the crime coverage in the Newark Star-Ledger.

And even if they did have the stature to righteously attack journalists for their CHSRA coverage, there’s this little problem. In their criticism, they haven’t laid a finger on the Times’ or the Bee’s reporting. Namely, in determining who would be chosen to build the first segment of the project from Merced to Fresno, a rail authority committee decided to emphasize competence and design skills. But the rules were subsequently changed in borderline-surreptitious fashion, and the favored bidder turned out to be the cheapest — and the one judged to have the least competence and design skills.

If Morales and Richard think this isn’t news because none of what was done was illegal, their credibility is even lower than it used to be.

By DAVE ROBERTS

What exactly was Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, implying last week when he took offense, both personally and for all Italians, after Assemblyman Don Wagner, R-Irvine, compared ABX1 27 to the type of extortion racket engaged in by Tony Soprano’s mob?

Wagner was making the analogy that requiring redevelopment agencies to pay for the privilege of being allowed to remain intact is similar to the Mafia requiring small businesses to pay for protection. “I think I saw this in an episode of ‘The Sopranos’,” said Wagner. Speaking as if a Mafia member talking about a redevelopment agency (RDA), Wagner said, “Nice little RDA you’ve got there — it would be a shame if anything happens to it.”

Wagner was making the point that the Legislature should not provide a loophole that could keep RDAs alive. “We need to make sure that these agencies don’t continue to violate liberties, don’t continue to unnecessarily tax,” he said. “Let’s not go for the bait and switch. Let’s not buy the insurance policy that Tony Soprano is selling us.”

Democrats were free to disagree with Wagner’s take on this pay-to-play legislation. Instead, Portantino chose to play the victim card: “I just rise because I take offense at the reference to ‘The Sopranos.’ As a proud Italian-American, I resent that, and I would respectfully ask the commenter to make an apology to Italian-Americans in California.”

Apology Is Policy

A logical response by Wagner could have been, “Why do you take offense to a reference to ‘The Sopranos’? I made no slur against Italian-Americans, whether living in California or elsewhere, and owe them no apology.”

Instead, Wagner half-conceded the legitimacy of Portantino’s faux umbrage, saying, “I will apologize to any Italian-Americans who are not in the Mafia and engaged in insurance scams.”

When that was met with harrumphs by the Democrat Victimization Caucus, Wagner felt the need to expand: “My apology, if one is needed, is sincere. My reference is not to suggest — and I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially one who seems to be extraordinarily outraged over this for reasons I don’t understand — my reference is not lost on anyone here. This is not an attack on anyone. This bill is a bait and switch.”

That semi-apology led to Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-South Los Angeles County, rising not to take offense, but to get in Wagner’s face and shove him, which, of course, turned it into a national news story. It’s not clear whether Furutani, a Japanese-American with the build of a Sumo wrestler, was sticking up for the Italian-Americans in his district or just likes to shove people.

Lost in the kerfuffle was what exactly was Wagner’s offense requiring an apology and shove?

If anything, it’s Portantino who committed the slur on Italian-Americans by equating them with the Sopranos. Few (if any) people think that all or most or even a sizeable percentage of Italian-Americans are criminals or associated with organized crime. And everyone knows that “The Sopranos” was a fictional TV show. So it’s Portantino, by automatically assuming that Sopranos equals Italian-Americans, who has committed the offense and should apologize.

More Offenses?

What if Wagner had said that ABX1 27 reminds him of the low-life behavior on “The Jersey Shore”? Would Portantino been similarly offended and demanded an apology? Wagner also said in his opposition to the bill, “We are not going to blindly abolish RDA until we know what replaces it.” Should that have led a blind — excuse me, visually challenged — legislator to rise and demand an apology? Wagner also said, “We were asked to buy a pig in a poke.” A possible offense against pig farmers?

Liberals throw out the race or heritage card so often because it efficiently and effectively shuts up the opposition. It’s kind of like when Silvio whacked Adriana after she blabbed too much to the feds about the Soprano operation. The question is: When will Republicans stop apologizing for nothing and start hitting back?