An Ethical Sinkhole in Connecticut
What do sinkholes and poor drainage in a newly-built highway have to do
with government ethics? Often, they are the result of incompetence. But
they are also often the result of unethical conduct.<br>
<br>
That seems to be the cause in Connecticut's big highway mess that has
slowly been unveiled over the last two-and-a-half years, most recently
in an article in the September issue of <span>Connecticut</span>
magazine. The mess involves improvements to a 3-mile strip of
Interstate 84, a $60-million project whose cost has been
increased by about $50 million, so far.<br>
<br>
The design firm that was chosen is headed by a former Republican
National Committee member, who has contributed to many politicians,
including the former and current governors.<br>
<br>
Due to cuts in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) staff, private
firms are hired to oversee road projects. The firm that was chosen was
banned from Connecticut road work projects during the 1990s due to
"problems with federal prosecutors" and the sentencing of one of its
executives to prison for bribing a Connecticut city manager.<br>
<br>
The original engineer in charge got into a dispute over workmanship
with the contractor, and was replaced by a man whose mother happens to
be the Deputy Speaker of the House in Connecticut (after leaving
the firm, the engineer became first selectman, effectively mayor, of a Connecticut
town). This engineer, it turns out, had falsified his qualifications,
and the Dept of Transportation did not do a background check. The
engineer's certification had been suspended due to false claims of work
experience, and his firm's president reportedly knew this, but said
nothing to the DOT. The firm's reports do not, according to the
article, "hint at the enormity of the failures taking place."<br>
<br>
One subcontractor made a video of poorly aligned drainpipes and sent it
to the bureau chief of administration and finance at the DOT. When
asked to testify, the DOT chief refused, saying he had little involvement with the
project. But according to an article in the <span>New Haven Register,</span> he had been
involved in some critical decisions. And two of his children, the
article said, held jobs with the project's contractor.<br>
<br>
After having been paid $56 million, and with investigators "moving in,"
the contractor declared insolvency and walked away from the project, as
well as two others in the state. The owners reorganized the company
under a new name and, within days, they were back working on the other
two projects, chosen by the bonding company (which has sole discretion)
because they had their equipment on site. The bonding company on the
I-84 project, however, did not choose the contractor in its new guise,
but instead sued it (for, just before declaring insolvency,
transferring funds to benefit family members and family-controlled
interests).<br>
<br>
A good question here: does a bonding company on a government project
have a fiduciary obligation to act in the public interest, or only in
its own interest? It would likely say that the public interest required
that the show go on, but with a company that had days before declared
insolvency under a different name?<br>
<br>
The governor established a task force to investigate the DOT and
suggest reforms. The suggested reforms weren't about competence. They sought to
make the department "more accountable for achieving measurable results
... more communicative, less insular, more responsive, and more open
and transparent in all processes."<br>
<br>
The DOT's attitude toward communication can be seen in the fact that it
has refused to allow interviews of managers about the I-84 mess. One of
its attorneys is quoted as having said that the DOT "is not under any
legal obligation to speak with the press regarding this or any other
matter." Speaking with the press is speaking with the public. If it
weren't for the public nature of our judicial system and the state's Freedom of Information Act, the public would know very
little about what's going on.<br>
<br>
One state senator thinks that an important problem is that former DOT
officials are working for the construction companies that are being
hired, and that current DOT officials overseeing and selecting
contractors might think about their future when they make their
decisions.<br>
<br>
The state's Attorney General has said of the I-84 mess, that much of
the financial damages will be recovered, but that the damage "is
irreparable in terms of its impact on our integrity, our credibility,
and the trust of taxpayers."<br>
<br>
But this is a municipal ethics blog, so I should end with the fact that
the firm charged with overseeing the I-84 mess is overseeing two
projects in my very own town. It will come as no surprise that four of
its executives gave sizeable campaign contributions to the town's first
selectman seeking re-election, including the engineer in charge of the
I-84 project (who falsified his qualifications) and the one found to have
bribed a city manager. Despite the public controversy involving the
firm and <a href="http://northhaveninfo.blogspot.com/2007/10/two-north-haven-government-c…; target="”_blank”">my
own personal objections</a>, it was not removed from its job in our
town, and is most likely working in towns across the state, and in
other states.<br>
<br>
Unethical conduct at one level of government spreads in many ways to
other levels of government. One of the reasons I focus on municipal
ethics is that this is where unethical conduct starts, this is where
poor ethical environments breed bad habits. In the I-84 mess, all sorts of personal interests -- falsification of qualifications, nepotism, the revolving door, partisan
influence and political influence -- combined together to cost the public
up to $50 million, not to mention accidents, years of traffic jams, and
less trust and respect in government.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---<p></p>