Home
What an honest arbitrator ....
For more than a decade, the New Jersey attorney general’s office conducted a hard-fought legal battle to hold Exxon Mobil Corporation responsible for decades of environmental contamination in northern New Jersey.
But when the news came that the state had reached a deal to settle its $8.9 billion claim for about $250 million, the driving force behind the settlement was not the attorney general’s office — it was Gov. Chris Christie’s chief counsel, Christopher S. Porrino, two people familiar with the negotiations said.
One of those people, Bradley M. Campbell, was the commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection in 2004 when the lawsuits against Exxon were filed. Mr. Campbell, in an Op-Ed article appearing in The New York Times on Thursday, wrote that “even more troubling” than the decision to settle the lawsuit were “the circumstances surrounding the decision.”
He goes on to say that former colleagues of his in the state government told him that Mr. Porrino “inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.”
The settlement, first reported by The Times on Friday, came two months after the attorney general’s office, in a court brief, argued vigorously for $8.9 billion in damages, saying, “The scope of the environmental damage resulting from the discharges is as obvious as it is staggering and unprecedented in New Jersey.”
The state, which litigated the case through the administrations of four governors, based its damages claim on what it said was contamination and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes and meadows in northern New Jersey, at two refinery sites, in Bayonne and Linden (known as Bayway).
The settlement has drawn broad criticism from environmental advocates and state lawmakers.
Vincent Prieto, the New Jersey Assembly speaker, and John F. McKeon, chairman of the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, both Democrats, said on Wednesday that they planned to hold a hearing on the deal on March 19.
“The reported settlement is appalling and disturbing,” Mr. McKeon said. “The Christie administration appears more interested in rewarding Exxon Mobil — for whatever reason — than protecting taxpayers and our environment.”
And Stephen M. Sweeney, the State Senate president, and Senator Raymond J. Lesniak, also Democrats, said on Tuesday that the Senate would seek to intervene in the lawsuit and try to block the deal from being approved.
Continue reading the main story
Much of the criticism has focused on the lack of a public rationale for why the state would choose to settle a lawsuit that it had invested so much effort and time in trying to win; environmentalists fear that Mr. Christie, a Republican, wants to use the money for other budgetary needs. Indeed, a state appropriations law, proposed by Mr. Christie last year, says that any funds beyond the first $50 million collected in damages or other environmental recoveries shall go to the state’s general fund.
When state lawmakers tried to amend the proposal to steer more money back toward environmental restoration, Mr. Christie vetoed the effort.
The settlement and the closing briefs followed a 2014 trial that lasted over eight months in which liability was no longer an issue, and a judge was to decide how much Exxon should pay in damages. The judge, Michael S. Hogan, was believed to be ready to rule when a deputy state attorney general, Richard F. Engel, emailed the judge and asked for a delay, citing the settlement talks.
In the Op-Ed piece, Mr. Campbell calls the decision to settle for “roughly three cents on the dollar” after years of litigation an “embarrassment to law enforcement and good government.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/christies-office-took-over-exxon-settlement-ex-official-says.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2
For more than a decade, the New Jersey attorney general’s office conducted a hard-fought legal battle to hold Exxon Mobil Corporation responsible for decades of environmental contamination in northern New Jersey.
But when the news came that the state had reached a deal to settle its $8.9 billion claim for about $250 million, the driving force behind the settlement was not the attorney general’s office — it was Gov. Chris Christie’s chief counsel, Christopher S. Porrino, two people familiar with the negotiations said.
One of those people, Bradley M. Campbell, was the commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection in 2004 when the lawsuits against Exxon were filed. Mr. Campbell, in an Op-Ed article appearing in The New York Times on Thursday, wrote that “even more troubling” than the decision to settle the lawsuit were “the circumstances surrounding the decision.”
He goes on to say that former colleagues of his in the state government told him that Mr. Porrino “inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.”
The settlement, first reported by The Times on Friday, came two months after the attorney general’s office, in a court brief, argued vigorously for $8.9 billion in damages, saying, “The scope of the environmental damage resulting from the discharges is as obvious as it is staggering and unprecedented in New Jersey.”
The state, which litigated the case through the administrations of four governors, based its damages claim on what it said was contamination and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes and meadows in northern New Jersey, at two refinery sites, in Bayonne and Linden (known as Bayway).
The settlement has drawn broad criticism from environmental advocates and state lawmakers.
Vincent Prieto, the New Jersey Assembly speaker, and John F. McKeon, chairman of the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, both Democrats, said on Wednesday that they planned to hold a hearing on the deal on March 19.
“The reported settlement is appalling and disturbing,” Mr. McKeon said. “The Christie administration appears more interested in rewarding Exxon Mobil — for whatever reason — than protecting taxpayers and our environment.”
And Stephen M. Sweeney, the State Senate president, and Senator Raymond J. Lesniak, also Democrats, said on Tuesday that the Senate would seek to intervene in the lawsuit and try to block the deal from being approved.
Continue reading the main story
Much of the criticism has focused on the lack of a public rationale for why the state would choose to settle a lawsuit that it had invested so much effort and time in trying to win; environmentalists fear that Mr. Christie, a Republican, wants to use the money for other budgetary needs. Indeed, a state appropriations law, proposed by Mr. Christie last year, says that any funds beyond the first $50 million collected in damages or other environmental recoveries shall go to the state’s general fund.
When state lawmakers tried to amend the proposal to steer more money back toward environmental restoration, Mr. Christie vetoed the effort.
The settlement and the closing briefs followed a 2014 trial that lasted over eight months in which liability was no longer an issue, and a judge was to decide how much Exxon should pay in damages. The judge, Michael S. Hogan, was believed to be ready to rule when a deputy state attorney general, Richard F. Engel, emailed the judge and asked for a delay, citing the settlement talks.
In the Op-Ed piece, Mr. Campbell calls the decision to settle for “roughly three cents on the dollar” after years of litigation an “embarrassment to law enforcement and good government.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/christies-office-took-over-exxon-settlement-ex-official-says.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2
