|
Dear Neighbors: The abrupt closure of the Washington Bridge harmed (and ended) many businesses while causing delays and hassles for tens of thousands on a daily basis. Since this calamity began last December, many of you have asked for accountability, demanding that I, as your representative, do my part to learn how and why the failure occurred. In this letter, I explain why legislative oversight has failed to date, and how the Attorney General has a crucial role in promoting accountability. A. The Unproductive Legislative Oversight Hearing This past February, I participated in a joint hearing by the House and Senate Oversight Committees. We questioned RIDOT officials about the missed opportunities to take action in light of “cookie cutter” inspection reports that, despite their weak content, still reported serious structural issues. At the time, RIDOT offered two answers, namely that it relied on its inspectors’ expertise and that all would be explained in a forthcoming forensic audit report. Since that time, we have seen the problems with both parts of RIDOT’s explanation. A recent WJAR TV 10 Report notes that the state’s bridge inspection manual requires RIDOT to review inspection reports with a “poor rating,” which would include all of the inspection reports from 2015 to 2023. Also, RIDOT has announced that it will not produce the promised forensic audit report after all, as it is part of the lawsuit the State filed against the contractors. By deferring their answers in February by promising a forensic audit report they later refused to produce, RIDOT treated the Joint Oversight Committee to a classic example of a Catch-22. B. The Importance Of Discovery In The Lawsuit In a recent press conference, the Governor offered an alternative way to answer the accountability question. According to WPRI-12, he stated that “[d]uring that [legal] discovery you’re going to see whether there were any management issues that need to be addressed.” This is promising, but I fear it will become part of a second Catch-22. Civil discovery documents start out as “public” in the sense that they can be disclosed by the parties, but only if they choose to do so. Even worse, it is common in complex civil litigation for the parties to ask the Court to enter a protective order that prevents disclosure until after the conclusion of the lawsuit (and possibly even after that). This is exactly what happened with the 38 Studios case, where the public did not learn the role and responsibility of State officials until the civil case settled, years after the fiasco took place. We cannot afford to have a second Catch-22, as the same RIDOT officials who are responsible for the construction of the new Washington Bridge may have had a role in the failure of the previous one, and currently are involved in a stalled procurement process that yielded no takers when put out to bid. We cannot wait years for the civil lawsuit to resolve before we learn of RIDOT’s role and the lessons to be learned from that experience. C. The Attorney General’s Role I believe the Attorney General has a critical opportunity to prevent this outcome. Open government is part of his job description, as his website notes that “we value transparency in state and local government. When government decisions are debated in public and made open to inspection, the result is a more engaged citizenry that is invested in its community.” As co-counsel for the State, he can ensure that discovery materials are shared with the public to the fullest extent possible in order to provide the accountability that Rhode Islanders rightfully demand. Two weeks ago, I sent the Attorney General this Letter urging him to apply his policy of open government to his role as co-counsel for the State in the Washington Bridge litigation. The letter asks him to set up a website that contains all of the pleadings, motions and non-privileged discovery materials from the Washington Bridge lawsuit, and to object to any attempts to cloak those materials in a protective order. D. Conclusion It is my hope that the Attorney General will conduct this lawsuit in a manner consistent with open government and accountability. In my view, his decisions as co-counsel can both defend the public’s right to know and ensure that the State learns any appropriate lessons from this failure in time to ensure that the new Washington Bridge (as well as possible other RIDOT projects) has a better chance of durable success. |
|
|