The Big Dig is the biggest issue in the campaign. It always has been, but folks in the media and political junkies like us haven’t really recognized that. It’s an issue so resonant, so ridiculous, so nifty, so wasteful, so tragic, with so many possible villains and so few heroes, that our entire political and government establishment is implicated in its failures. The only reason why the first and last words out of every candidate’s mouth haven’t been “Big Dig” must have simply been wishful thinking.
No more. That someone actually died in the tunnels felt not like a surprise, but like something you knew was going to happen. You believed the assurances of the authorities because, well, you had no choice. But there’s even more at stake here than the ability to drive to the airport without worrying about getting crushed to death by a slab of concrete.
The Big Dig is a black hole that by its indictment of government incompetence, sucks all issues into its maw. Take taxes: depending on how you slice it, Massachusetts tax burden is not particularly high; if you’ve ever lived in Chicago or New York you know that’s the case. And yet, in light of this colossal failure of accountability, how can any politician in Massachusetts credibly claim that tax money won’t be wasted? All of the candidates promise new spending initiatives, in health care, education, potholes, law enforcement, whatever. In the public’s mind, the Big Dig calls into question every single government spending initiative, however well-intended and well-designed, because it calls into question the ability of our government to deliver on its promises, and its willingness to put the public interest first.
Like it or not, we are all dependent on the competence and good faith of government employees and contractors, from cops and guys filling potholes to DAs and Governors. But the Big Dig continues to poison people’s faith in the government that they have supposedly elected. Governors, legislators, constitutional officers, bureaucrats … all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t keep concrete tiles from falling on us.
Sixteen years of Republican governors didn’t give us a safe tunnel. Neither did countless years of Democratic legislative dominance. Party didn’t matter in this case: in fact, checks and balances were so effective that accountability itself was checked and balanced. Aside from the obvious (Bechtel), to whom to we go to get satisfaction in this case? The Governor? The legislature? The turnpike chair? The AG? Where is the pressure point for public anger?
So what we’ve had is a two-handed circular firing squad, with Romney and Reilly blaming Amorello, others blaming Reilly for not prosecuting the contractors more vigorously, Romney blaming the legislature for not bringing Amorello to heel, the lege blaming Bechtel, and Mihos blaming everyone. And this week the guns were fired. And it’s hard to see who’s going to be left standing.
The unresponsiveness is even more a testament to a long-inert culture of clubbiness and influence, of steaks and cigars, legislative logrolling and campaign cash. How did Bechtel get away with this for 20 years? Where were our investigators? Our lawyers? Oh wait … we know. They were told to do nothing.
And so the question of the Big Dig is a populist one: Who’s looking out for us? In the crazy special-interest roller-derby on Beacon Hill, who’s the referee? Why were there never enough Mr. Smiths Gone To Boston to keep up the scrutiny on Bechtel and make sure the job was done right? Did the public just fail to elect them? Did we get so cynical we just never expected anything better of them?
Blame is the currency of accountability in a democracy; and when blame is diffused, so is accountability. When everyone’s to blame, no one’s to blame: The currency is devalued.
And so, instead of a great purging of the guilty and ineffective, as democracies are wont to go through from time to time, the public goes about its necessary business — even driving through those very tunnels — but with a hazy suspicion that the powers that be are concerned with someone’s else’s well-being, and a despair that any of this will ever get better.
Charlie – This is a great summary. Nicely done.
<
p>
I don’t think anyone currently in office is going to be spared the wrath of the voters on this one. Time for a change and a breath of fresh air. I think many people will listen to what Deval Patrick has been saying for the last year about the Big Dig, accountability and the need for leadership. It’s just a shame this tragedy had to occur for our political leaders to take action.
<
p>
2. Charley, well laid out.
<
p>
It’s only a campaign issue if there are a) clearly different positions or b) vastly different credibility.
<
p>
a. Positions? Everyone will say: replace Amorello, go after Bechtel.
<
p>
Healey and Reilly will also say “Here’s what I’m doing right now” (in position as LG, AG) and Patrick and Gabrieli will say “You didn’t do enough.”
<
p>
b. So it comes down to personal credibility.
<
p>
Reilly may gain or lose, but certainly a chance to gain…a week ago anyone would have wondered how he could plausibly gain traction. Weekly news hits(“We’ve just uncovered X”) that will drive his free media and help his message as a straightforward, decent guy.
<
p>
Gabrieli and Patrick will be pretty similar in terms of message, and mostly bystanders while blaming Reilly. For example, if this were 2002, Mitt would come in and say “I cleaned up the corrupt Olympics, and I can clean this up, too.” Neither Gabrieli or Patrick can push the clean-up message with anywhere close to that degree.
<
p>
Healey’s in HUGE trouble. But not because independent voters blame Big Dig on “Republican control” as suggested on a post above. They just don’t…a) Mitt has been lobbying to fire a former R state senator and blocked by Dem house and senate, b) it’s a Tip O’Neil project more than a Weld one. I’m not saying D’s won’t make the “It’s Republican fault” argument (over and over on BMG, no doubt), I’m just saying it won’t work with independent voters.
<
p>
Healey’s bad news: Mihos woke up yesterday and said “Holy cow, I can win.” Or at least he said “Holy cow, I’m relevant, this will be a blast!” He looked like a moron in the debate. He can’t speak credibly to education, crime, energy, economic development. August on his yacht was looking nicer and nicer.
<
p>
He’s now in it to the end. At least 2/3 of his votes will come from Healey.
<
p>
If Mitt weren’t running for president, he could let Healey set up an office inside the damn tunnel and coordinate the state DTR response. But he needs the pub for his presidential bid, so there’s not camera time to go around. If Mitt does well, she could benefit a bit, but not enough to compensate for the energized Mihos.
<
p>
3. Bonus question
<
p>
Which will be first candidate to update website to have an “issues tab” called “Big Dig”?
<
p>
As of this minute: nobody.
<
p>
Just two candidates have updated their sites with statements on Dig: Patrick, Mihos.
What I meant by no one will be spared is that neither the public nor the media is going to let this issue slide. Each and every elected official is going to be hammered. Do I think some of those might be politically threatened? Maybe. If I had to commute to or from the Boston area, I would have a daily visual reminder of how little we can trust those currently in power. This has become a personal safety issue for every single voter who has to traverse that area. Nothing motivates people more than fear — just ask Rove or Bush.
<
p>
Romney and Reilly are on the front lines together. I think they are both going to be scarred by this (as well they should be). Kerry Healey inherits this as well. Mihos is so obviously incompetent, his most important contribution to this race is going to be assisting the public and the media in keeping this disaster front and center.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is on the record supporting a special investigation of the Big Dig — long before this disaster occured. He was right to bring the issue to the forefront and to question those who preferred to ignore it. He’s the only candidate who was vocal about this issue before this week. He would have my vote just for that alone. Everyone is now jumping on the bandwagon that Deval has been riding alone for the last year.
<
p>
Well anyway. I’m pretty lame for actually noting it.
<
p>
2. Lolorb…
<
p>
DP made some comment about Big Dig last year. Wonderful. Was he riding “alone” as you say? Hardly.
<
p>
In the last year:
<
p>
*Romney had aggressively tried to fire the Big Dig guy.
<
p>
*Reilly had tried to recover money from Bechtel.
<
p>
*Even Gabrieli had made “cracking down on Big Dig overruns” part of his actual radio ads which have been playing non-stop…would seem to make him slightly ahead of DP on the issue in terms of average voter perception.
<
p>
We get that you support Deval, but when you try to position him as an early and prominent guy to the Big Dig party – the solitary guy – it’s just ludicrous. You can certainly vie to nail R+R for failing. That might well stick.
<
p>
But DP’s reality is that he and Gabs are equivalents on this issue: no blame, mild claim to “I told ’em so!”, very low ability to drive free media cycle in coming weeks. Possibly a net positive, possibly a net negative.
<
p>
I agree with EBIII that Reilly’s early reaction seemed a little overly aggressive. If he tones it down (Reilly, not EBIII – not possible with EBIII) and shoots straight, IMO is his true nature, at least he is alive again in the campaign.
Could you please specify which other candidate spoke publicly about a special investigator for the Big Dig before this week? I’m not aware of anyone other than Deval. I’ve listened to every debate and I remember only Deval talking openly about the culture of silence surrounding the Big Dig. Didn’t Reilly pass on pursuing Bechtel? I do support Deval because to my knowledge, he’s the only one that has suggested a reasonable method for addressing the problems.
Lolorb –
<
p>
1. Your broad point was that Deval was somehow alone being “ahead of the curve”
<
p>
But then you’re relying on narrow and silly wordsmithing….
<
p>
With Reilly actually investigating Bechtel for the cost overruns; with Romney actually demanding Amorello’s head….Patrick needed to say something during the campaign.
<
p>
So he put out a Feb press release calling for “more public oversight” and then an April one calling for a “special inspector”. No problem there. Sensible planning for debates.
<
p>
I.e., in contrast to Reilly (“I’ll nail these guys”) and Romney (“We need a new guy to head the Turnpike”), Gabrieli (“I’ll crack down on Big Dig style overruns”), Patrick’s press release was “We need a new guy with a different title and a clean slate.”
<
p>
Reasonable message. Perhaps even the right approach, I don’t know.
<
p>
But you try to equate Patrick’s particular spin with “the only guy who was putting forward a vision on dealing with the Big Dig.” Then you try to defy me to find someone else using Patrick’s particular spin, as if I’d suggested that people were flocking to his spin. It’s a word game for you. I prefer Scrabble, though I struggle to use the “Q.”
<
p>
2. You say: “Everyone is now jumping on the bandwagon that Deval has been riding alone for the last year” – c’mon, Lo.
<
p>
If your bandwagon is the very narrow “special inspector general” bandwagon, who else is jumping on that precise idea?
<
p>
If your bandwagon is more broadly “Big Dig criticism,” the idea that Deval alone has been on it is just wrong.
<
p>
In fact, the idea that this was a big Deval issue before this week doesn’t seem to be the case. I just leafed through his 35-page (pdf) Issues book and I didn’t find a single mention of Big Dig. Maybe I missed it.
<
p>
3. The Globe has previously asked of Reilly: He took office in 1999. Was he too slow in pursuing Bechtel, allowing statutes of limitation to expire? If you’re a Patrick fan, that’s your message – not that Patrick was somehow in front of the curve here, but instead that Patrick’s plan is the best one moving forward, and Reilly was simply too slow.
Deval’s been on the very narrow and absolutely positive bandwagon of special inspector general for a long while. It’s a common sense approach and THE BEST ONE MOVING FORWARD. And I didn’t think we could ever agree on anything!
The pointing of fingers by Reilly and Romney is upsetting.
Romney’s first public display of emotion ever is him yelling at Amorello for not coming to the State House.
<
p>
Imagine that. In the car ride to the “scene of the homicide” Romney is steaming because Amorello is not kissing his ass.
“I’m Mitt Romney! I’m running for President. I’m huge. This better not screw things up for me.” Poor Keery Healy had to sit in the car with him.
<
p>
(an aside – I think I’m starting to have “a thing” for Kerry Healy. Can’t explain it, but she’s been lookin’ good. Men can vote on looks too)
<
p>
And why does Reilly keep calling this a crime scene? It is a “possible” crime scene. So now he has to indict someone. Will he come back and say that no crime has been committed? He can’t. I can’t wait to see the cross-examination of the lead investigator at this future manslaughter trial. He’ll basically have to admit that he was told by his superiors â and gubernatorial candidate – that a crime occurred. He is supposed to be going into it with an open mind. ‘Make the facts fit the politics’ will be the defense.
<
p>
A homicide investigation is not and never ever should be political. Reillyâs rush to the TV cameras when the body is still warm makes me want to puke.
<
p>
This is a disgrace. Shame on Reilly.
this postfrom a former MBTA general counsel sums it up.
I made reference to it in the original post, through Bruce’s post on mAss Backwards.
I agree with the general claims of Charley, but I disagree about the Big Dig becoming issue numero uno with voters. I just don’t see it. On the left, people want progressive stuff — environmental action, haelth care, education, and so forth. The right — lower my taxes and quit meddling, please.
<
p>
If there were an obvious scapegoat or an obvious savior w.r.t. the Big Dig, maybe the voters would move on the issue. But, there just isn’t. The Big Digs failures — some combination of waste, graft, flawed oversight, big promises, foolishly low estimates, and the fact that this was a tremendously difficult, tremendously complex project destined for unforseen complications — they don’t point to an easy answer. If a voter wants to vote on the Big Dig as issue numero uno, whom does he vote for? Whom does he vote against? It’s just not clear.
<
p>
I also agree with much of EB3, but as to the “crime scene” — a crime scene isn’t a possible. It is or it isn’t. Now, a crime scene doesn’t mean a crime was committed: it means that a crime may have been committed, and by treating it as a crime scene further proper investigation can take place. Correctly handling possible evidence. Ensuring that no one is tampering with the scene. Having access to the necessary law enforcement personel and equipment to process the details. If Reilly doesn’t declare it a crime scene, it makes it far more difficult to investigate the possibility. If he does, he can always decide later that there is insufficient evidence to make a case.
<
p>
I don’t like the way Reilly or Romney have handled things thus far, but Reilly calling it a crime scene was a good call.
a crime has been committed.
Story in today’s Globe about defective bolts holding up the tunnel ceiling that has been known since 1999 and nobody did anything about it? Sounds like criminal negligence to me. That this was known before they opened the tunnel, and they just went ahead and let it go and kept their fingers crossed for 7 years….
who declares you have a cancerous tumor and your leg has to be amputated by simply looking at it and touching it?
<
p>
That is what Reilly is doing before he runs the tests. The tests will now confirm his unproffessionally based opinion.
How about this one…a body is found in a park, its head partially crushed. There is a brick lying 2 feet away. Do you assume that this brick fell on the person by accident, or do you declare it a crime scene?
In your park analogy we all know it is a homicide. That is far from clear here. Yes there is evidence but we still do not know where, when, how, who, and if a crime occurred. Plenty of evidence to trigger an in-depth an investigation.
Proving something beyond reasonable doubt is much different than assuming a crime happened.
It seems to me that within the next 6 months a name will appear and this will be the name we hang everything on. The whole Big Dig Debacle. Just like Reilly wants. Regardless of the underlying facts.
Like Tooky
to produce the underlying facts. Please cite something – anything – to substantiate your point that Tom Reilly has said that a crime has been committed.
<
p>
If your argument is premised on the fact that has referred to the site of the tragedy as a “crime scene,” that is preposterous. Anytime a person is found dead under such circumstances, the site naturally becomes a “crime scene.” It does not become the scene of the crime until criminal activity has been established.
the fact that he said that he is looking for negligent manslaughter. That is pretty specific which seems to indicate that Reilly believes a crime has been committed.
That Tom Reilly has said that (and I’ll quote since nobody else seems to want to) “the jurisdiction that we are looking at is negligent manslaughter” has conveniently morphed into EB3’s uncited, blanket statement that Reilly has said a crime has been committed is your best factual argument?
<
p>
“Looking at” seems altogether consistent with an ongoing investigation. There is nothing conclusive or inappropriate at “looking at” something.
When you start throwing out which crimes you want to investigate there is a supposition that a crime has occurred. His quote presupposes that he has made up his mind that a crime has occurred. As for your rating me a 4 I don’t get it. Ratings aren’t for agreement they are for quality. My idea didn’t strike you as a good one, go figure. But that doesn’t mean it “needs work.”
Setting aside the specifics of “crime scene” debate, I did get the impression that Reilly was pushing the envelope a bit.
<
p>
However, now that you mention it, I can’t cite or remember exactly which remarks gave me that impression….was it radio, paper, etc….was it tone or words? I dunno. I’ll look more closely at his next remarks….
EB3, I continue to read your posts and continue to read the coverage and I have come across absolutely nothing to substantiate your argument that Reilly has already made conclusions. Please cite something.
<
p>
Otherwise, you are unnecessarily working people up into a lather and mistating Tom REilly’s position.
<
p>
Again, I cannot possibly have read or heard everything, but everyhting that I have read or heard fails to substantiate your point.
EB3, please cite a quote of Tom Reilly saying that a crime has been committed in this matter.
<
p>
Obviously, I have not read or heard every printed word on this story, but I have yet to see or hear Tom Reilly say that a crime has been committed. I’ve heard him say that it is a crime scene and will be handled as a crime scene.
When I first heard the words “This is a criminal homicide investigation now” reported in the media about Reilly’s case I was wondering if it was jumping the gun. But I think he’s been measured and NOT one of the people pointing fingers before all is known about what happened, so I’m actually on his side somewhat. I heard him today on NPR and I thought he sounded like a guy who wanted to get to the bottom of it before making any assertions (unlike a governor I know).
<
p>
However, Reilly WILL politically benefit from this whole mess, he really should be stepping aside and letting the county DA handle it, frankly. And I can’t help but say in that cynical part of my mind that Reilly is damned lucky this happened now so he can get back in the news looking like a leader, because without a major case/disaster landing on his lap this summer, people were getting to wonder WTF he was good for as a governor candidate.
<
p>
Just sayin’.
If he has, which I have not read or heard anywhere, then cite it.
A DA or AG has full access and investigative powers where a death has occurred. Suicide, motorvehicle etc. Not all deadly car accidents are crimes. Yet the DA and police are there investigating to see if one occurred. They don’t call it a crime scene. And they don’t have to. Your analysis is not based on the facts.
<
p>
Reilly is looking for a lynching now, and he won’t rest until he has a name to hang this on. Very unprofessional.
<
p>
This does have legs for the campaign.
if its possible that a crime has been committed. Say, for example, an explosion in NY lights an apartment building on fire. Maybe the gas main happened to have a leak, or maybe it was intentional.
<
p>
If the police & fire inspector aren’t certain it was an accident, do they make it a crime scene until they can be sure there wasn’t a crime?
<
p>
I think therein lies the answer.
<
p>
As to Reilly insisting a crime has been committed, well, thats asinine and he knows better.
There are statutes regarding deaths and medical examiners and all sorts of such things regarding investigating a death. It happens everyday. They don’t call them crime scenes yet they are secured and investigators take a look. This is factual not something you are creating in your mind.
<
p>
Reilly is doing a rush to judgment. That is not how u investigate a death. It is more then his continuing to refer to it as a crime scene. It is his statements sooo sooooon after that suggest he is convinced a crime occurred. He’s no engineer, and I doubt he has them working in his office.And I doubt engineers can give him any evidence right now that indicate a crime occurred.
<
p>
This is the recipe for a dangerous prosecutor.
You keep saying that Reilly has said a crime was definitely committed. Please cite that statement. Your entire argument is premised on that statement and I have yet to find it in the public record.
<
p>
From what I have watched and read, Tom Reilly has called the it a crime scene, is conducting an investigation, and has said that the jurisdiction might include negligent manslaughter.
<
p>
I have not seen anything to justify your statement that Tom Reilly has said a crime has been committed, so please cite something.
But his only professionaljob in life has been as a prosecutor and he sucks at it. I heard his press conference yesterday and he sounded obtuse to say the least.
Now that he is a candidate for a non-prosecutorial job he has to speak about issues which aren’t no-brainers. And he sounds like a man who knows very little of what he speaks.
<
p>
Sorry MavDem, The guy is a mental midget.
I often find you entertaining, but this one post has earned my very first “3” rating. I probably should have given it a “4,” but it was so devoid of any facts to back up your repeated assertions that my gut went with “3.” (I will still continue to be amused by your polls.)
<
p>
Throughout this entire thread, you have maintained that Tom Reilly has stated that a crime has been committed. When pressed to cite a source, you have thus far failed to do so.
<
p>
Instead, you have avoided the facts and shifted gears. . .Reilly is an unsuccessful prosecutor. . .Reilly needs to stop taling like a prosecutor. . .Reilly is a “mental midget. . .”
<
p>
Before I offer my takes on those entirely new arguments, I will once again note that you have failed to back up your earlier claim. Now onto your fall back positions. . .
<
p>
Tom Reilly has been such an unsuccessful prosecutor that he was elected and then re-elected Middlesex DA. . .
<
p>
Tom Reilly has been such an unsuccessful prosecutor that he was elected and re-elected Attorney General. . .
<
p>
Tom Reilly is handling this terrible event in his capacity as Attorney General. He probably sounds prosecutorial because that’s exactly what an Attorney General isn supposed to sound like. If he chooses to make this issue purely gubernatorial – focusing on the politics rather than the events – than he will be doing himself, his current office, and the public a disservice.
<
p>
As for Reilly being a “mental midget,” that’s a lame throw-away line that pretty much sums up your inability to produce an actual quote. I’m sorry, but I’m calling it like I see it.
until he knows what he is talking about. A professional prosecutor does not give a reasonable person the impression that a crime has definitely been committed when one has not been shown.
<
p>
I repeat. The guy is a mental midget.
I tend to like you Ernie, but it seems to me you’re backtracking now. You’ve gone from, Reilly said a crime was committed to “…the impression that a crime has definitely been committed.” It might be that you’re just not being very clear, but it sounds to me like you’re hedging on what you said earlier.
Ernie has said that Tom Reilly has said a crime was committed. All I have seen and heard is Tom Reilly say that the site of the tragedy is a crime scene and will be investigated accordingly.
<
p>
Again, EB3, please cite.
A crime scene means a crime occurred there. Notice how U.S. Attorneys office is also investigating and in Globe today their spokesman says it to early to give out information and wouldn’t be proper to comment on this matter at this time.
I am also reading that the system that failed is a system used throughout the country. Therefore this an engineering standard commonly used in the industry. That makes it tough to prove negligence let alone criminality.
<
p>
Bottom line is ‘who knows?’ We need a comprehensive investigation.
<
p>
But D.A.s office and Us Attorneys office has not referred to it as a crime scene, has not told the press what the evidence is as soon as it is discovered, and yet have been running their own investigations.
Reilly is the one grabbing the spotlight and may screw the whole thing up.
<
p>
Reilly is investigating whether a crime has occurred. He has failed miserably to make that clear.
I don’t know about using the US Attorney’s office as a point of comparison for the AG. As best I understand these things, and that understanding is admittedly rudimentary, Mike Sullivan et al are only looking into whether fraud in any way contributed to the accident. As for the DAs office, I am relatively sure that the AG and DA have concurrent jurisdiction in this case, though this is the best source I could find. Based on that, all DA Conley would have to do is ask for help.
<
p>
The other issue is that any crime might present itself as multi-jurisdictional. I don’t know the particulars on this, but the Suffolk DA’s office is limited to crimes occuring within its jurisdiction. I’m not certain where all of the offices, or for that matter where the pertinent offices/planning etc. that might be involved in this are located. But if it didn’t happen exclusively within Suffolk county, then Reilly has reason to step in.
<
p>
And Ernie, since when would you want Dan Conley doing anything?
Everyone views the Big Dig as a pure government project, but they are giving the private sector a huge free pass here.
<
p>
This project was built by private companies, some of which defrauded the state.
<
p>
The issue seems to be focusing on why there wasn’t enough state oversight. The issue needs to be changed to why did the companies need so much oversight? Is it government’s fault for failing to catch companies that broke the law or acted in a manner that put profit above public safety?
It boggles my mind that in such a convoluted and intricate mess, the most obvious entity to look at for misdeeds, Bechtel, has been mentioned so little.
This is the entity with so little social responsibility they tried to privatize water supply and collection in Bolivia.
France currently uses a private franchise model to provide water to over 75 percent of its population and the United Kingdom provides nearly 100% of its water via a fully privatized water-supply systems. Add to that Argentina, Australia, Chile, and Italy who are adopting privatization models.
in the Google search that I linked, you’ll find that your example and mine are quite dissimilar.
I don’t know about Bechtel (I haven’t heard much I liked about them) but I worked for Parsons. I KNOW exactly how fucking difficult it is to work for government clients sometimes. You give them your best advice on the best way to do something and they go in the opposite direction oftentimes. To their own detriment.
<
p>
There was some defrauding of the government (the cement/leak problems) and those subcontractors who were told by management NOT to use that concrete but did anyway are going to jail, as well they should.
<
p>
A project this huge, the blame is more complicated then you think. That’s why this call for Matt’s head bothers me. Maybe he’s a total hack who can’t do his job, maybe the TA should be folded into MassHighway…but on THIS specific instance, can we please please please conclude the investigation before making political hay???
That Bechtel and Parsons (two seperate companies who joined on this project in case you didn’t know) do capital projects like this all over the world. Parsons does all sorts of bridge and tunnel projects.
<
p>
So if we keep wanting to scapegoat the management companies that have done this work elsewhere, why aren’t we looking at that work to see if there’s a pattern of lack of safety first? I’d like to know if there have been issues in other infrastructure projects by these companies.
<
p>
I suspect (having worked at Parsons Brinkerhoff, by the way) that these companies were hampered by incompetence in governance and oversight on the client’s part – pols who were too quick to want a cheap solution and lower bids due to the increased cost of the project (which, from what I understand, Bechtel/Parsons reported to the client – the state – a decade before the numbers became public, as they ought to have under the contract).
<
p>
This project was on a scope no one had done before, it’s the largest tunnel project in the world as I recall (doing that much work at once I mean). It was BOUND to have cost overruns. If the legislature kept that quiet for a decade, it’s on their head when the public wasn’t prepared for it and it became a scandal.
<
p>
Just my $.02 for what it’s worth. I know some of the engineers and project managers at Parsons. shrug
While there haven’t been any Mr Smiths running around Beacon Hill or the CA/T project in the past, we have had at least some oversight of this from the auditor and the inspector general, among others, pointing out the issues — during today’s romney press conference the press picked up on this —– http://www.mass.gov/legis/senate/bigdig.htm . Only Romney/Cogliano could’ve removed Bechtel from this job. Or at the very least, shamed them into maybe some more oversight on their own part.
Yes Charley, a belated praise for your post (lack of computer access). I agree completely and again, my headline is a paraphrase of a line you wrote months ago and it has to get used.
I will lather, rinse and repeat.