The Pennsylvania deal was rare in that a bidding process occurred before the legislature had enacted enabling legislation broadly authorizing public-private partnerships. "There was never a chance for the legislators to really buy in even if they'd wanted to," says Shuey, executive director of the Senate Transportation Committee. "The natural response of the general assembly, having been ignored, is to get its fur up and lash out a bit."64
Pennsylvania officials acknowledge that they limited stakeholder involvement-including with members of the legislature and citizens-during the negotiation phase of the proposed lease. They said they held back information about the bids and the content of the lease to ensure the competitiveness of the process and freedom from potential outside interference.65
In the end, the perceived lack of transparency from the governor's office may have hindered the deal's chances. Some legislators felt they lacked sufficient information or were not involved enough in the process to persuade them in favor of the lease. In a March 16, 2008, statement, Roger Madigan, then the Republican chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, said: "The complexity of this issue and the extremely limited amount of information that has been flowing to the public and the General Assembly creates a very steep learning curve for everyone outside of the administration in dealing with a significant public policy decision."66
The process might have benefited from additional information sharing, at least with the legislature. But, as noted earlier, a number of legislators who had supported Act 44 and considered it the state's preferred plan were confused when the governor resurrected the turnpike lease and were disinclined to favor it. Their transparency concerns may have given them another reason to oppose it.