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.

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 Connecticut 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.

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.

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.

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."

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 New Haven Register, he had been involved in some critical decisions. And two of his children, the article said, held jobs with the project's contractor.

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).

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?

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."

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.

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.

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."

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 my own personal objections, it was not removed from its job in our town, and is most likely working in towns across the state, and in other states.

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.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---