Hat 1: Mr Samson represents developers and other enterprising interests, from his lucrative position, as half of the New Jersey law firm, Wolff & Samson.
Hat 2: Mr Samson votes on deals and contracts and other business of the Port Authority, from his strategic perch, as Chairman of that agency.
And sometime Mr Samson wears both hats, at the same time.
New Port Authority conflict issue emerges: NJ Transit got $1 lease while a client of David Samson's law firm
by Shawn Boburg, Staff Writer, The Record, northjersey.com -- Feb 19, 2014
Port Authority Chairman David Samson, embroiled in controversies over whether clients of his law firm benefited from his public position, voted to give another client -- NJ Transit -- a $1-per-year lease on a valuable park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, records show.
At the time of the Feb. 9, 2012, vote, Samson’s firm, Wolff & Samson, was getting up to $1.5 million to advise NJ Transit on how to maximize profits from dozens of its commuter lots, including the one in North Bergen, according to public documents.
The 49-year lease for the commuter lot near Route 495 means the Port Authority will collect millions less in revenues -- NJ Transit previously paid the authority $900,000 a year for use of the lot, which is used by hundreds of commuters each day.
[...]
As Rachel Maddow noted on tonight's show:
Shouldn't have Samson had recused himself from that Vote? The Vote where the income of the Port Authority
was reduced by nearly $900,000 a year on that park-and-ride lot -- while simultaneously the income of Samson's client
went up by the same amount -- for the next 49 years!
Presumably, Wolff & Samson's retainer from parking lot operator (NJ Transit) will see a healthy increase too, from the current $1.5 million fee -- after NJ Transit has a chance to see those "maximized profits" that they hired Wolff & Samson to "advise them on."
As Rachel Maddow noted on tonight's show: This isn't the first time Mr Samson has used his public PA position to the benefit his law firm's private clients.
Someone should take away one of Samson's two hats. That, or at minimum, make sure he can't wear his public hat, when that PA business, has a direct financial impact his other "profitable business" when he wears his investment adviser's hat.
If there's a more obvious example of Quid-pro-Quo sweetheart deal, I don't know what it would be. $900K for a Buck -- that's quite the public finagling bargain!