A long third day of testimony in the Pennsylvania Turnpike preliminary hearing came to a sudden stop when Deputy Attorney General Laurel Brandstetter spoke the word “perjury.”
Robert Pintar Jr. was finishing his direct testimony Wednesday about gifts and political donations he made as vice president for engineering firm Wilbur Smith when Brandstetter asked if he was testifying under a grant of immunity. Pintar said he was.
Brandstetter then asked District Justice William Wenner for a recess so she could discuss the terms of Pintar’s immunity deal with his attorney. Pintar’s face tightened, and the attorneys for the six men accused of trading political contributions for turnpike contracts lept to their feet to object. In the ensuing argument, Brandstetter said she was concerned Pintar might have perjured himself.
Pintar’s potential trouble stems from his testimony Wednesday about why he consulted former turnpike Chief Operating Officer George Hatalowich before making political contributions.
In his role with Wilbur Smith, Pintar said he received invitations to many political fundraisers. If those invitations were signed by turnpike commissioners, he wanted to attend, because he knew other important engineering firms would be there. If the invitation wasn’t signed, Pintar said he would call Hatalowich to see if it was likely engineering firms were involved with the event.
“He would always say you don’t have to do anything,” Pintar testified.
Asked if there would be consequences with the turnpike if Wilbur Smith didn’t attend an event, Pintar replied, “No, I didn’t think that.”
That testimony seems at odds with what Pintar told the investigating grand jury about his calls to Hatalowich, according to the presentment.
“Typically, Hatalowich would use a scale that ranged from ‘very important’ to ‘pretty important’ to ‘you don’t have to’ or ‘don’t worry about it.’ From those instructions Pintar was able to determine which events were important to the Turnpike. Pintar explained their willingness to participate in Turnpike related political events as follows, ‘[w]e believed that making political donations enhanced our ability to get another contract or a larger contract,’” Pintar told the grand jury according to the presentment.
During her questioning Wednesday, Brandstetter specifically asked Pintar if Hatalowich had told him “don’t worry about” certain events, while saying others were a priority. This time Pintar said Hatalowich didn’t classify events like that.
After Brandstetter raised the question of perjury — her request for a conference with Pintar’s attorney was denied — Pintar took deliberate pauses before answering during cross examination. Before he could again be questioned by Brandstetter, Pintar’s attorney, Megan Temple, asked to speak to her client.
Temple then told the court she believed it might be a question of Pintar making statements inconsistent with his testimony to the grand jury, as opposed to an outright lie. She wanted to review the grand jury testimony with her client before he spoke any further, since she could not be sure if Brandstetter’s re-direct examination would have begun laying the foundation for a perjury case against Pintar or to gather evidence against the turnpike defendants.
Ultimately, Pintar was excused without answering any more questions. Wenner made no comment on the truthfulness of the statements.
Paying for lodging, dining in Hershey
The political contributions were only part of the reason why Pintar was called to the stand. He also detailed giving Hatalowich tickets to Pittsburgh Pirates games, lodgings at the Hotel Hershey, dinner at the Circular Room and paying for massages for Hatalowich and his wife.
Pintar was one of three witnesses that worked for engineering firms called Wednesday to describe the gifts — lunches, dinners, tickets, apartment services and hotel rooms — they gave to Hatalowich.
All three witnesses — Pintar, Jack Porter of McTish, Kunkel and Associates; and James Smith Jr., formerly of Buchart Horn — said they didn’t expect to receive turnpike contracts in exchange for their gifts. Rather, all three said offering these kinds of hospitalities was a way of maintaining a relationship with a client.
When asked if they thought the gifts had an improper influence on Hatalowich, all three said no.
Pintar was also asked about Hatalowich’s role in his company changing subcontractors for a turnpike project to make sure Wilbur Smith worked with a firm that employed Jan Brimmeier, sister of CEO Joe Brimmeier.
Wilbur Smith originally planned to use Quad Three Group for architectural work on the Mon-Fayette expressway section of the turnpike. Hatalowich called Pintar to say Quad Three laid off Jan Brimmeier and other architects, Pintar said. In that phone call, Hatalowich told Pintar that Wilbur Smith should hire Architectural Innovations, Jan Brimmeier’s new firm, for the work instead, since Quad Three no longer had any architects in its Pittsburgh office.
Soon after, Pintar testified he called Quad Three and replaced them with Architectural Innovations for the project.
Wilbur Smith — now called CEM Smith — still does work for the turnpike, as well as the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Pintar is still a vice president there.
Puffery or an improper edge?
Earlier Wednesday afternoon, George Droll testified that defendant Dennis Miller told him he controlled computer consulting work for the turnpike, and just had to pick which firm to give it to.
At the time of the conversation in 2005, Droll said that his consulting firm was doing work for Ciber, Inc., where Miller was vice president overseeing Ciber’s work for the turnpike. During a casual conversation one day, Droll said he asked Miller how he came to work for Ciber.
Miller replied he “had the project. He was looking for a home for true project,” Droll said. By project, he was describing a very lucrative series of turnpike computer contracts.
Later, during cross-examination, one of Miller’s lawyers asked if Miller could have been engaging in “puffery,” and was trying to make himself look like a big shot by boasting to Droll?
“I would not consider it that way,” Droll replied.
At another time, Miller asked all of the subcontractors working under Ciber, including Droll’s company, to make $1,000 contributions to state Sen. Vince Fumo’s re-election campaign, Droll said. Droll wrote the check
When asked, Droll said Miller never explicitly threatened to terminate his company’s business with Ciber if Droll did not make the requested contribution to Fumo.
Miller proposed that Droll’s company pay for a trip for turnpike executives to Mexico. If he did, Droll said, Miller said he would “bump our project budget” to offset the expenses.
“I was not interested,” Droll said. “I just didn’t feel right at the end of the day, I guess.”
Moving forward
Even after Wednesday’s nine hours of testimony, the hearing is still running behind schedule.
Originally, defense attorneys and prosecutors said they wanted to finish the hearing this week. But with seven sets of closing arguments looming, Wenner opened the door to finishing witness testimony this week and hearing closing arguments in his Linglestown courtroom at a later date.
The hearing will resume Thursday morning.
Article source: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/06/possible_perjury_and_trips_to.html
