Amtrak's Top Execs pony up hot shot lawyers on Amtraks dime?

Hello fellow AMTK fans its been a while, however this story took me by surprise yesterday. It seems Amtrak's top officials, when in trouble are allowed to retain high priced lawyers on Amtrak's dime.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... n+Times%29

THE Washington Times.. A congressional probe is calling for an end to Amtrak's use of expensive outside lawyers to represent its top employees during administrative investigations, calling the practice wasteful and unheard of across government
Reported earlier this month that several top Amtrak officials, including Treasurer Dale Stein and General Counsel Eleanor Acheson, declined to participate in a recent administrative investigation by Amtrak's inspector general until the government-owned rail service first paid for them to have lawyers.

I found a similar topic however it dates back to 2006... "U.S. review finds Amtrak mismanages legal billing"
I ask to my fellow railfans and those on this site who work in legal departments, (Tadman), Is this not normal corporate practice ?
ARE other government run transportation systems (adjacent to Amtrak) top execs allowed to retain lawyers on the companies dime, IE: Cascades or Hiawatha ?
Does anyone else on this forum feel, that if a top exec @ Amtrak is being investigated, his legal cost that are billed to the Amtrak should be well caped. Also any over the cap cost should come from the Defendants own expenses?
Im interested to know what are the hard working conductors, ticket agents, engineers, etc. able to retain in the form of legal council, and be paid by Amtrak if such a allegation arises against one of them?

I KNOW THIS WILL BE A TOUCHY SUBJECT HOWEVER LETS NOT GO TO FAR INTO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WITH THIS TOPIC.

Comments are open to all, I'll enjoy reading what others are contemplating on this subject. With the economy so tight and Amtrak ( as a whole) always in the Red, would you considered this a waste of Amtrak's funds?

What makes this story so intriguing is the fact that the investigation was being conducted by Amtrak's inspector general (internal investigation) and that the two people mentioned in the article (one of them, in fact, Corporate Counsel) were not even the targets of that investigation. Doesn't sound like anybody trusts anybody in that place.

I believe that any person being investigated should have the right to retain the best available council, no matter the cost. Like it or not, our system of justice only lives up to its higher ideals of presumed innocence and reasonable doubt when the accused is afforded expert council.

If, however, an Amtrak executive retained an excellent lawyer and was then found guilty they should then be made to pay back the costs. I'm all for allowing every person to be represented by the best, because those presumed innocent deserve nothing less. Those found guilty despite the best defense money can buy should be the ones to pay.

SemperFidelis,
I think I agree with your position, but in this case the two individuals weren't being charged with anything. Presumably, potentially, they had information that would have furthered an investigation. If everyone whom the Inspector General wants to talk to has to have a lawyer first, you can understand that costs can get out of control. At the same time, what does it say about management if they feel they need a lawyer when asked questions?
TB

TBlack wrote:SemperFidelis,
I think I agree with your position, but in this case the two individuals weren't being charged with anything. Presumably, potentially, they had information that would have furthered an investigation. If everyone whom the Inspector General wants to talk to has to have a lawyer first, you can understand that costs can get out of control. At the same time, what does it say about management if they feel they need a lawyer when asked questions?
TB

Watch this video and find out why...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

To presume guilt based on one's desire to be represented by a lawyer in an investigation is part of what is damaging our system of justice. Representation is a right Constitutionally granted to us to protect us, not a priveledge whose excersize should indicate the intent or nature of our actions.

To be fair, however, it does look pretty suspicious in this case. I suppose the same could be said of other people's actions when excersizing other rights, though. To some people, purchasing a .50 calibre rifle is nothing more than a Constitutionally protected purchase of a firearm whose intent is not to be judged by government. To some other people, we might look a that and ask "Why do you need that?" It's one of those arguements that makes life in America so much fun! Without it, we'd have at least one fewer "news" networks, right?

If I were in their shoes, I would want the best representation possible as well. An investigation by the Inspector General could yield allegations against individuals, rather than against Amtrak itself. You have to remember Amtrak's lawyers work for Amtrak, not for Amtrak officials. As Amtrak employees, Amtrak's lawyers would also be subject to investigation by Amtrak's IG.

This is part of the investigation into the resignation/firing of Inspector General Fred Weiderhold in 2009. It's clear that a bad relationship developed between Amtrak and the Office of the Inspector General during the Bush years. One of the moves the new Board of Directors made in 2009 was to replace the IG, who had been in office for 20 years. There are laws that govern how and when a Federal agency may remove its IG. It appears that Amtrak's Board was ready to remove Weiderhold for cause, but they gave him the opporunity to accept a resignation and severance package that required him to be silent regarding the circumstances of his departure. So it comes down to "did he jump or was he pushed?"

How effective was Weiderhold? Spend a minute and think about all the Amtrak mistakes during the 20 years that Weiderhold was IG and it's pretty clear (to me) that the guy was ineffective: the Downs/Warrington "glidepath" years, the sale and leaseback of rolling stock, the lack of oversight on the Acela development program, the lack of a corporate mission, etc. One of the new Board's goals was to overhaul and modernize the OIG, hopefully to prevent the type of f----ups that have been SOP at Amtrak during the last 20 years.

Weiderhold also had a military SWAT team, the OSSSO, under his department's authority, which created friction with the Amtrak Police Department and the Fraternal Order of Police because OSSSO was unrepresented. I understand that Amtrak needs to be prepared for a terrorist attack and that it is appropriate for the IG to investigate Amtrak's anti-terrorism preparations; but is it appropriate for the IG to have a military SWAT team under his control?

The issue of hiring of outside lawyers was one of the topics that Weiderhold was investigating at the time of his resignation/dismissal. Amtrak spent over $175 million on outside lawyers fees during the years 2002-09, which is rightfully something that an IG should be looking into. But how far do the Republicans (Grassley, Mica, Issa) want to press this issue? I know that Amtrak is a favorite dog for the right wing to kick, but the spending on outside lawyers happened during the Bush years and under a Bush appointed Board. Do they really want to make it a partisan issue?

I would once again like to point out how proud I am of our fine and strong country that the events of September 11th, 2001 were used to create yet another overarmed government force to provide ineffective protection against an asymetrical threat whose proper execution would render useless such a force.

Or, in terms most "news" watching Americans can understand: Suicide bombers don't care if you shoot at them after thier mission is complete.

I am way off topic here, but ten years of this nonsense is enough. Feel free to delete my post, fair moderator. I realize this has nothing to do with railroading and I apologize in advance.

In the Pacific Theater we dispatched Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighters to intercept an aerial convoy that was transporting and protecting Japan's best military leader, Admiral Yamamoto. The evil, America hating, socialist President Roosevelt ordered this mission. Because the President so cherished the Constitution and the rules of war, a group of lawyers and military experts feverishly debated the Constitutionality and legality of this mission, by order of the President, to ensure that killing a valuable enemy asset was in line with our higher ideals as a nation.

Now, sixty/seventy years later we have secret military police forces that report to the Inspector General of a political football/passenger railroad system whose sole mission is impossible to successfully complete without an incompetent enemy. And the most ironic part about all of this is that the new political movement that loves parroting thier radio broadcast heroes' words championing limited government will be the first people soiling themselves with fear should this force be wiped from existance.

Why did watching trains have to stop being fun?

SemperFidelis wrote:I am way off topic here, but ten years of this nonsense is enough. Feel free to delete my post, fair moderator. I realize this has nothing to do with railroading and I apologize in advance.

Out of respect for your service, the post stands. I think we've exhausted the topic, though.