Is it not to be considered a grave thing that the Herbert Administration -- twice now -- offered money to keep people from talking about the Provo River-Flatiron case?
The first time came to our attention back in 2010. Provo River Constructors had won a record-sized project, getting $1.1 billion to rebuild a portion of the I-15. The runner up in the bidding, Flatiron/Skanska/Zachry, cried foul, saying it had not been treated fairly, squarely and evenly.
So, the state paid Flatiron $13 million to settle.
When Kent Scott, attorney for Flatiron, was approached by the media to discuss the case, he said he sure would like to say something, but couldn't. "I'd love to (talk). It's fascinating," he told the Salt Lake Tribune. A confidentiality agreement required Flatiron's partners to not comment.
So, he zipped his mouth, bit his tongue and winced.
Right now, some say that John Njord should be fired. He's the executive director of the Utah Department of Transportation, and he's taking heat for having -- again -- offered money in exchange for silence.
This latest chapter in the Provo River-Flatiron controversy boiled up about a month ago, a lady by the name of Denise Graham saying she would be getting her job back at UDOT after an administrative judge ruled the state had wrongfully fired her for leaking information about the Provo River-Flatiron case.
But, back pay? UDOT said that before there would be any back pay, she must first sign an agreement to call off those publicizing her case, including the Democratic Party.
Graham did end up getting the back pay, without signing the agreement.
There is another feature of the story that is interesting. Graham didn't get the same position back. That post, after remaining vacant for a year, was filled about two weeks before the administrative law judge handed down his ruling.
Did the state see it coming, and hurry to fill the post to justify shuttling Graham to a lesser position? We can only wonder.
My question -- make that questions -- after all of this: Why all the secrecy to begin with? Why should Flatiron/Skanska/Zachry not be allowed to talk, in the first place? And what of Graham being fired for supposedly not being silent? Isn't that wrong? No, I don't mean wrong because the judge said she didn't actually do it, but wrong because requiring her not to talk is wrong. What kind of information was it that we justify her not being allowed to speak about it?
Perhaps Njord should be fired, for more than once he offered money to keep things quiet. That's a grave thing, to me. But, more importantly, we should be asking why these people are being silenced. We should demand the muzzle be taken off the mouths of the Flatiron folks, allowing them to tell us what happened.
We are the public, the taxpayers, the citizens. So, yes, it is our business. The public servants have spent our money -- a record $1.1 billion for the UDOT project and an unsettling $13 million for the settlement -- and we have a right to know why and how our money is being spent.
Why are we not being included in knowing what happened? Why are people being silenced? I'm guessing it is because negotiations are considered confidential. Negotiations are one of the things for which government bodies are allowed to slip into closed session. Is that the reason why all this secrecy is considered acceptable?
It is not acceptable, and I won't think it is until given good explanation. I haven't noticed that in the press yet, and wonder why.
We speak a lot about open government. It would appear now is one time we should be demanding it.
No comments:
Post a Comment