MDC rebukes Chairman William DiBella over award of outside legal fees following independent investigation

An outside investigation paid for by the Metropolitan District Commission has rebuked powerful Chairman William DiBella for something that has bedeviled the regional water and sewer authority for years — steering business to politically connected lawyers.

In a sign that cracks may be forming in DiBella’s control over the sprawling, non-profit municipal corporation, the investigation commissioned by the MDC’s audit committee has reported that, in addition to exceeding his authority by trying to direct work to longtime friend James Sandler, DiBella stalled the probe by not cooperating fully at one point and refused to cooperate at another.

The MDC audit committee adopted the investigative findings in a resolution.

Until January 2022, Sandler, who was not part of the MDC in-house legal staff, had a contract with the district that paid him an hourly rate for unlimited work and, according to MDC commissioners and staff, he has collected about $2.8 million in fees from the MDC since 2008. His firm, Sandler & Mara, features a photograph of an MDC reservoir on its web page.

The independent investigation was commissioned last fall amid an effort by reform-minded commissioners to reduce spending on outside legal services. Sandler, who has been doing work for the MDC since 1972, became a subject when questions arose over what work he was doing for the district, who was authorizing it and how he was billing.

By early 2022, according to the investigation by the Hartford law firm Kainen, Escalera & McHale, Sandler was continuing to bill the MDC for what would amount to about $85,000 — even though he had been told by District legal counsel Christopher Stone and others that his contract had been canceled and there was no work for him. The $85,000 was not paid.

DiBella, according to the report of the investigation, exceeded his authority as chairman and  violated an MDC bylaw, by personally authorizing Sandler to continue working on two projects and directing the authority’s chief executive to pay Sandler $14,000 for work he said he did in 2021 but didn’t bill until the following year. The MDC did not pay the $14,000 bill, either.

DiBella supported payment to Sandler even after agreeing with others on the board in January 2022 to discontinue outside legal payments unless the work was approved by the commission board and a formal contract was signed, according to MDC records.

DiBella on Friday declined to discuss the investigation. He disputed the findings, but said he will wait to address them on a point-by-point basis at an upcoming MDC meeting.

Sandler referred questions to his lawyer, Ray Hassett, who said, among other things, that Sandler disputes the investigative findings and that his billings underreport the extent of the work he did for the District.

“I think it would be safe to say that his position would be that he has contributed over 40 years of complete dedication to the MDC and that what is indicated in his billing is a minimum of what he performed as far as services for the MDC,” Hassett said.

In a December letter to the district, mailed in care of DiBella, Sandler withdrew and waived payment on this 2022 billings, a decision that he said “will allow closure” for both the MDC and his law firm.

Sandler refused to submit to questioning as part of the investigation. Hassett said Sandler believes the firm hired by the MDC to do the investigation had a conflict of interest because of its legal representation of MIRA, the materials recycling plant also operating in Harford’s south meadow and which has business interests that have conflicted with those of the MDC.

DiBella also initially resisted questioning, citing a potential conflict with the MIRA operation.

When he later agreed to an interview on November 16, the session lasted over three hours, but accomplished little, according to the report, because investigating attorney Patrick McHale “was able to ask only a small portion of his questions because Chairman DiBella’s responses often strayed far afield from the questions asked resulting in lengthy responses consisting of information that was not under investigation.”

The interview was rescheduled, but postponed repeatedly until late December, when DiBella’s lawyer, former District Counsel R. Bartley Halloran, told the investigators by email reproduced in the report that further questioning  “is not warranted” in view of Sandler’s decision to withdraw his 2022 bills.

“If you or the committee wishes to submit written questions to Chairman DiBella, we will review them and if appropriate, respond,” Halloran responded.

After another series of fruitless negotiations, McHale wrote to Halloran in early January:

“I am sorry to learn of Chairman DiBella’s decision to refuse to cooperate further with respect to our investigation. You are correct that we were allowed an opportunity to speak with him for three hours on November 16, 2022. But, as you know, we were able to discuss with him only a portion of our inquiry related to the Property Disposition work and nothing with respect to the South Meadows work in which, from the records we have been provided, it appears that he was much more directly involved.

“That was because Chairman DiBella had difficulty limiting his responses to the questions asked of him on November 16th and seemed to prefer to discuss his work in the State Legislature about which he was asked no questions.

“As to your suggestion that we submit any further questions to Chairman DiBella only in writing, I have noticed that such an approach was attempted by the Internal Audit Committee before my firm’s engagement. Based upon my review of the written questions asked of him and his written responses, it does not appear that he was willing to provide responsive answers to many of the written questions about the matter under investigation either.

“As I am sure you are aware, I have no authority to require the Chairman to cooperate with the investigation. Since I have received full cooperation from other witnesses, who managed to provide responsive answers to all questions asked during in-person interviews in under two hours’ time, I will advise the Audit Committee that we should conclude our witness interviews at this time and prepare a report of our findings and recommendations based upon the information we have been able [to] discover.”

DiBella ultimately agreed to submit to questions for an hour and half on Jan. 31. But, according to the investigative report, “After one hour and forty minutes, Attorney Halloran ended the second interview, and Chairman DiBella declined to cooperate further despite Attorney McHale’s request that he stay, so that Attorney McHale could complete the interview. Consequently, the investigators did not pose all of their questions to Chairman DiBella.”