A bill that would keep bridge inspection reports secret from the public died in the Senate after a storm of protest erupted from the media.
Layne Bruce is the Executive Director of the Mississippi Press Association, well-respected by all who know him. The Head Beagle sounded the siren after a bill restricting public records access passed the House of Representatives on February 12 in a column distributed to media outlets throughout the state.
Mr. Bruce warned:
With broad support, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed two bills last week that would close off many records related to bridge and roadway safety, as well as exempt large swaths of personally identifiable information from many documents.
More straightforward of the two measures, House Bill 1660 deals with roads and bridges. The obvious argument against exempting information of this sort is citizens have a right to know about safety conditions, what the responsible agencies know about deficiencies, and what steps are being taken to correct problems.
The Executive Director is correct. The public indeed has a right to know the conditions of its bridges. Holding public officials accountable includes being able to get inspection reports to see if they are doing their job. Heaven forbid a bridge should collapse when the inspections showed the government knew about it for years. Mr. Bruce tried to provide some context of the bill:
It seems not by coincidence the bill was filed after the Roy Howard Center for Community Journalism at the University of Southern Mississippi submitted a complaint with the Mississippi Ethics Commission claiming the state Department of Transportation was improperly refusing to turn over records about a bridge closure in Jackson County and about which the news outlet had been reporting. Ethics filed an order on Jan. 22 ruling that MDOT should turn over the records. As of Friday, they had not. That’s two weeks after the deadline set by the Ethics Commission order. Clearly, too many folks believe what’s in the records is none of our business.
JJ did some digging and there is indeed a Rest of the Story angle. Joshua Wilson, a worker at Roy Howard filed a public records request at MDOT. The Ethics opinion states Mr. Wilson:
submitted a public records request to MDOT seeking “all inspection records for the Hanshaw Bridge from January 1, 2019, through the present.” The State Aid Engineer heading the Office of State Aid Road Construction (OSARC), a quasi-separate office within MDOT, responded in writing. The response identified two pages of non-exempt documents responsive to the request and approximately three hundred sixty-eight (368) pages of documents which OSARC concluded were “privileged and exempt from disclosure under 23 U.S.C. Section 407 and Mississippi Code Section 25-61-11. For this reason, your request with respect to these documents is denied.” OSARC provided the two pages of non-exempt documents at no charge, which consisted of one letter from the State Aid Engineer to the Mayor of the City of Ocean Springs, notifying him that a bridge on “Hanshaw Road over Davis Bayou…should be immediately closed.”
The Ethics Commission indeed found Wilson was entitled to the records. However, MDOT did not provide the records because it was trying to stall while the legislature passed a law keeping such records from the public.
Simply put, the complainant never paid for his records after the Ethics Commission ruled in his favor. MDOT sent him an invoice for $91.80, which was never paid. It is a reasonable fee for nearly 400 pages of documents and yours truly has paid similar amounts for such requests. However, no pay means no records.
The bill itself was short but rather vague:
SECTION 1. Reports, surveys, schedules, lists or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions or railway highway crossings, pursuant to federal law or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project that may be implemented using federal aid highway funds, are exempt from disclosure under the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983. History and text of bill.
The bill would indeed make bridge inspection reports secret. Heaven forbid the public should find out a bridge should collapse after warnings were ignored.
State Representative Steve Massengill, Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, sponsored the bill.
The bill died in the Senate Accountability, Efficiency, and Transparency Committee on March 3. However, it was not MDOT who lobbied for the bill. Sources said the State Aid Department supported the bill for security reasons. The agency feared someone could get records such as bridge designs that would allow someone with malicious intent to damage bridges.
Kingfish note: One could understand keeping records such as designs and drawings from the public for the reasons stated above. However, the public definitely has a right to see records such as inspection reports. Public officials should not be able to hide their incompetence behind the law. And now you know the REST of the story. Good Day.
15 comments:
Follow the money.
Thanks KF. Whenever public officials want to hide something, it's a huge red flag.
Whenever a legislator with clear conflicts of interest pushes a self-serving bill, it should carry a presumption that it is illegal. He/she should have to overcome that presumption before it can be passed.
This is strike two for the appointed Executive Director of MDOT.
If the safety of north Mississippians and truckers was not enough to get Mr. White reprimanded, maybe this will get him some attention.
"He was appointed by the Mississippi Transportation Commission to lead the agency, bringing experience as the former chief of staff for Governor Tate Reeves."
No surprise that Lee Yancey (R-MaryJane) voted in favor of the bill.
The Office of State Aid Road Construction (OSARC) is that part of MDOT that works with county road systems (not state or U.S. highways or interstates). They post their inspection reports online for all to see. Those reports are one or two page summaries in a standardized format that basically breaks everything down to numerical ratings. For instance, the bridge substructure (such as piles) and bridge superstructure (such as the deck sections you drive on) are given a rating from 0 to 9. What is not posted online is the inspector’s detailed notes that would include narratives, sketches, and photos of particular problem areas such as corrosion, cracking, or scouring. There is some engineering judgement that must be applied when using the notes to fill out the online report (Is that crack bad enough to reduce the superstructure rating from a 6 to a 5? Is the corrosion thinning of that steel beam enough to lower the posted weight limit?). The notes will also list the inspector(s), the online report will not. It sounds like it’s the notes, not the reports, that is the issue.
Two major contractors divide up the jobs while using many of the same crews and subs, keeping the money and influence in the same hands. MDOT engineers are the middle men. They love working both sides of the B2B process and create problems instead of preventing them. New and untrained often having to compensate for stretched thin state staffing shortages. Thankfully they are required to use US steel and some of that money goes to Nucor right here in Mississippi but the way contracts are handled they still procure from Tennessee, Louisiana & Texas.
If it's a public road (built or maintained with public funds), then they're public records. We own the bridges and the records.
Your rambling has nothing to do with the subject of the thread or the attempt to conceal inspections from the public.
So much for that.
But it's ok to keep campaign finance information for legislators secret? This is par for the course for our legislature. A bunch of misfits.
7:11, are you sure you replied to the correct comment? 2:56 gave great clarification.
Your premise is correct....and was once applied to all things "public"....where the citizens owned or had access to anything publicly funded. But due to their lack of strength to stay involved in the political process, nor any back bone to tar and feather politicians anymore - our entire government knows everything about us - and we know nothing about them.
These are public records, we pay for the inspections and repairs, and the government is not entitled to "privacy" in this instance. There is absolutely no compelling governmental privacy issue.
My brother once served on a Grand Jury that lasted for months. One of the things the jury looked at was roads and bridges within the jurisdiction. Funny how the jurors' residential roads and bridges were repaved and repaired soon thereafter.
It sounds like State Aid wanted the bill not MDOT. They are seperate entities. Although the director of State Aid was the MDOT bridge engineer for several years.
"7:11, are you sure you replied to the correct comment? 2:56 gave great clarification."
If that 'great clarification' were accurate, there would be need for a bill.
Post a Comment