In the debate over the much-anticipated Purple Line, it’s been forgotten that Keolis has satisfied the 2011 legislation’s two conditions for being allowed to bid on transit projects (“Purple Line Under Scrutiny,” Feb. 21). The first condition was that Keolis issue an apology to Holocaust victims — which the company did. The second condition was that the company come clean by making its archives available and turn over its records to a neutral arbitrator.
Keolis complied, and after a year of diligent research, the arbitrator ruled in 2012 that the company had satisfied both conditions of the 2011 law for coming clean and was therefore entitled to bid on transit projects. Although Keolis wasn’t awarded the 2012 contract, the company complied with the 2011 law and is a qualified bidder.
Why does Maryland have to revisit this issue and sponsor new legislation that imposes additional conditions, such as paying reparations, for allowing Keolis to bid? What message does additional conditions so soon after a company has complied with a recent law send to the business community?
Jeffrey H. Marks
Baltimore
