Hey, there! Log in / Register
State won't release report on what went wrong with Green Line extension
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What a shitshow
n/t
boils the blood
How is MA continually taken by these blood sucking contractors? Since we are such a "socialist" state why don't we have a state funded team of engineers and project manag...HAHAHAHAHAHA, oh yeah, Massachusetts. I forgot for a second.
This is the last straw
It's a public project, and they're worried about the contractor suing them because the contractor was unethical?????
The entire method of running construction projects need to change.
Builders build it for ME and YOU, not for their greedy pocketbooks. They are OUR SERVANTS (To be simply reductionist/absurdist). They use materials of a quality barely useful for the job, they take their own sweet time, and then act "aw, shucks" when the bs is called out. ( all this regards only the mgmnt levels of the construction industry)
Reversal of oversight is required. Micro-management by state engineers, absolute requirement of precise materials and methods and timetables, with penalties charged to the contractor if not followed exactly.
This can all be done for private projects, why is something that benefits so many people exempt?
Nope
If you read to the end of the article, it suggests that the State is contemplating exercising its options (i.e. termination) under the contract. The issue is likely that the contractor will argue that it followed the contract to the letter of the law, and that what the State is complaining about is that the contract was set up, or administered, in a way that the State just regrets. In all likelihood, the report being withheld provides a candid assessment to the State of the situation, including an assessment of how the contract worked, whether the contractor actually violated the contract, and the State's shortcomings in writing and administering the contract. My take is that this is less a case of a sleezy contractor bilking the State than it is incompetence at the DOT. We have a horrible track record of running transportation construction projects in Massachusetts, and it generally starts with the lack of sophistication, and resources, at DOT in terms of procurement, along with procurement laws that are just not best practices. Massachusetts should just adopt the federal procurement process, hire some GSA contracting personnel and run these projects more like the fed. It would certainly not end all cost overruns, but it would be way better than what we have now.
Yeah
Of course the contractor was following the letter of the law. After all, they likely where the ones to write the law via lobbying. Like the federal government there is a revolving door between large contractors and legislative staff.
The report will come out - hopefully will spur settlement.
I think that CommonWealth will prevail if it (or someone else) challenges the withholding of the report. I was once involved with a similar case, and that is exactly how I remember it paying out (atty-client privilege asserted, but the doc was more of a work-product so the decision to withhold was overturned and the docs were made public).
As for the (lack of) oversight issue, I mentioned one of the reasons yesterday. Unfortunately, unless we create more of a real authority-style operation for all of transportation (despite the T nominally being an authority, it has much less autonomy than real ones like Massport and the MWRA) this will not change anytime soon. Unfortunately, since that legal autonomy requires fiscal autonomy especially including reliable revenue sources (e.g., user fees such as tolls, fares and VMT), I don't think it's on the near horizon. A real authority would also be better able to leverage these "new" public-private partnerships that so many people are so high on.
At all events, perhaps the report can be used as leverage for a settlement in which the T gets to void the silly stuff in the contract and gets a hard and reasonable number, and the joint venture is given some immunity from fraud-type charges that the AG could probably bring (that stuff is almost always there if one looks hard enough - I have no inside knowledge, but just sayin').
You're funny.
You're funny.
I agree with you 100%, but it's funny you think this is the "last straw".
I've lived in this state my whole life, trust me when I tell you a few years down the road it will be something else.
Like I've said before, the voters get what they vote for. And the same people remain in office election after election, even after showing how incapable they are for the job at hand.
yuppp
In MA, as long as they have 'D' by there name- reelection!
really?
Then why isn't our new governor named Martha Coakley?
Because...
.. Even a left leaning state could see how pathetic she was.
Because she was so toxic team
Because she was so toxic team (D) stayed home. If she had run during a presidential election year it would have been a different story.
No, she would have lost.
It's not like she's the first democrat to lose. Remember Mitt Romney? Weld? There have been more Republican governors in MA's history then democrats!
The problem with corruption is deeply ingrained and isn't limited to one party or another.
1990 was a weird election
In that race, Weld was the (R) liberal and Silber was the (D) conservative. That led to the Republican gubernatorial conga line of Weld-Weld (re-elected as a strong incumbent against a super-weak opponent)-Cellucci (pseudo-incumbent after Weld tried for an ambassador job)-
SwiftRomney.Eventually Romney was so obviously gunning for another job that even the Weld and Cellucci precedents started looking like dedication....
The CommonWealth article
The CommonWealth article references a Sec of State guide that cites to Suffolk Constr. vs. Division of Capital Asset Mgt. (from 2007) for the proposition that Work Product is not exempt from MA's public records laws, but the SJC ruled this summer in DaRosa that Work Product in anticipation of litigation (which is what they are claiming here) is NOT a public record (http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2015/sjc-11759.html). So the guide and the CommonWealth's reference are out of date. In DaRosa, the Work Product was created by an outside consultant/contractor as it was here.
This doesn't go to the larger questions of whether this report was actually created "in the anticipation of litigation" to qualify as Work Product (or whether they are being over-broad in characterizing it that way) or if it is simply bad policy to rely on this exemption to withhold a report that is of obvious public interest even if it does apply.
(Edit: Under an analysis of other exemptions to the public records law, the SJC also stated: "Moreover, where a factual study or report...is interwoven with opinions or with analysis leading to opinions, a purely factual section of the report might fall outside exemption (d) but a discussion or analysis section interwoven with facts would be protected from disclosure." So, if not for the work product claim, I would only expect portions of the report to be released. There's also a doctrine of derivative attorney-client privilege that they may be relying on, but the SJC also discusses how limited in scope that doctrine is in DaRosa.)
I more or less agree with this ^ as I wrote above.
your comment was a bit more in-depth however, so I applaud you for that.
Whats the Over / Under
Anyone think a train will roll on the extension before 2021?
People should have just shut up 10 years ago and dealt with whatever was going to happen, not the exhaustive studies, etc. Enjoy taking the train to union square donuts for the 2024 Olympics!
The Second Avenue Subway
is gonna get finished first, just you watch.