Dear Neighbors:
I hope you had a Happy Halloween. In this letter, I will provide information about the issues on Tuesday’s Election Day ballot, and an update concerning the Washington Bridge lawsuit.
A. Election Day
Tuesday is Election Day, and I encourage you to exercise your right to vote if you have not yet done so. If you wish to vote early, Providence residents may do so at Providence City Hall on Monday, November 4. If you prefer to vote on Election Day (Tuesday, November 5), Providence polls will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. You can locate your polling station by clicking on this link, and choosing the “Find a polling place” option. I have shared some information and my opinions about the ballot questions and local races in previous letters you can read by clicking here.
B. The Washington Bridge Lawsuit
1. The Current Procedural Status
The State’s lawsuit against the engineers and consultants arising from the failure of the westbound side of the Washington Bridge entered a new phase last week when some of the defendants filed motions seeking dismissal of the Complaint filed by the State. Under the procedural rules, these motions must assume the truth of all of the Complaint’s allegations, but argue nevertheless that those allegations are legally insufficient to provide a valid claim for relief against that particular defendant. The State will now have the opportunity to object to the Motions, and the Court will likely hold hearings before make its rulings. If the Court denies a party’s motion to dismiss, the case against that party will proceed through discovery, at which time there may be motions for summary judgment or a trial at which all factual disputes will be resolved.
2. Barletta’s Motion To Dismiss
While the Motions to Dismiss at this stage are limited to the State’s facts, the arguments made by some of the contractors offer a preview of some of the issues raised by the lawsuit. I found particularly interesting the arguments made by Barletta, as part of the consortium that performed the construction work. In its Memorandum, Barletta argues that its scope of work was defined by a “Base Technical Concept” (“BTC”) developed by the State, and that Barletta’s work complied with the BTC. To the extent that the project’s scope did not include repair of the bridge’s structure beneath the roadway, Barletta argues that it cannot be held responsible for its compliance with what, in hindsight, was too narrow a scope of work. Barletta argues further that the State could have avoided this problem had it conducted more extensive testing before limiting the scope of work in this way. The State will respond in the coming weeks.
3. Public Access To The Court Documents
The Court filings are public documents which begin to show how and why the Washington Bridge failure occurred. As described in my letters of September 2 and September 15, I asked the Attorney General to publish the court pleadings file as a first step to advance government transparency. As reported in the Providence Journal, the Attorney General’s office announced on September 13 that “[a]ny document that’s filed publicly – or any pleading – will be available on our website.” When asked when this would happen, the Attorney General’s spokesperson stated “I don’t have a firm deadline,” but “imminently.”
Because nothing on this front has happened in the six weeks since the Attorney General’s announcement, I created this web page containing the lawsuit’s Complaint and principal motions to dismiss to keep the public informed about this important lawsuit. I will update this page with additional major pleadings and motions until such time as the Attorney General follows through on his pledge.