MnDOT Under Siege: All the Competing Agendas

MnDOT Under Siege: The Star Tribune's Agenda

Why the I-35 Bridge fell has become a war game in both the journalism and political worlds. The specific combatants are Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration, Democrats who disagree with the transportation policies of that Administration and the Star Tribune. What most people don't understand is that the soldiers on the field bearing the brunt of the battle are not the decision makers. Rather, the soldiers are the career civil servants at MnDOT.

Take an anti-MnDOT story that ran in the Strib this week, "MnDOT parsimonious with bridge-collapse info," written by Mike Kaszuba. The subheading of the story was, "Lawyers, legislators -- even a judge are annoyed by MnDOT's tight control of inspectors and others who have details on the 35W bridge;" below that, the text is divided by headers, "Put it in writing," "Keeping information secret" and "'Cloaked in secrecy.'"

Readers are left with the impression that the bridge collapse and what MnDOT is doing in the aftermath are some horrible hybrid of Watergate and the government response to Katrina. While the political (GOP) appointees in Pawlenty's administration are just plain ticked off, the rank-and-file classified employees -- the ones who actually do the work dictated by both the political people and the Star Tribune -- are nothing short of shell-shocked.

Not so much by the volume of the requests (there have been 76 formal document requests from various media). Or that many of the requests are overly broad, like "All inspection correspondence, electronic or otherwise, concerning Interstate 35W." As far as the MnDOT employees are concerned, that's fine, the First Amendment, the public's right to know and all that. But the way they are being treated by some media...strike that....the Star Tribune...strike that...certain Star Tribune reporters has them all floored.

One GOP legislator, disturbed by the secrecy shrouds detailed in the Star Tribune, sent an email to MnDOT asking what's going on. [PIM obtained copies of the relevant  emais.] Here's how MnDOT answered the question:

"Unfortunately, the relationship between our employees and some reporters -- and I stress 'some reporters' -- at the Star Tribune has become extremely strained...MnDOT employees have been subjected to professional and unnecessarily harsh name-calling, hostile phone conversations and phone and email harassment. MnDOT employees have come to me with reports of enduring profanity in phone conversations and having their professional and personal integrity questioned. Employees have further reported that, when they have granted interviews and provided professional information, they feel their work has been mischaracterized in print and facts have been disregarded in lieu of predetermined story lines."

To be precise, MnDOT employees are tired of hearing "BS" in heated long form, and "you're lying" and "you're stonewalling" from the two career Star Tribune reporters with pit bull reputations: Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe. What's more, a document request made one hour is followed by a series of harassing emails mere hours later asking where their documents are.

So, for the MnDOT employees who have to fulfill these document requests, being treated like they are jerks is one thing, but also, they are expressing an incredible sense of collective bewilderment over "Who's on first?" at the Star Tribune. Many of the document requests are duplicative -- different people at the paper are asking for exactly the same stuff. As far as PIM knows, there are at least eight different requests from Star Tribune people. Besides Kennedy and McEnroe, other Star Tribune reporters who are asking for duplicative documents are Dan Browning, Nick Coleman, Pat Doyle, Jim Foti, Kaszuba and Bob Von Sternberg.

Typically, on a big story like the bridge collapse, one editor is put in charge. This apparently hasn't happened.

Better media analysis minds than ours think there's something else going on: Star Tribune editor Nancy Barnes and others at the paper want a Pulitzer for the paper's coverage. That makes sense to us. The bridge collapse will likely be the only shot Minnesota media will have in our lifetimes at winning the "Breaking News" prize. [Let's all certainly hope so.]

The Pulitzer theory also explains why the paper repeatedly fails to point out MnDOT's legal constraints on document requests, an omission that is grossly misleading to readers. Media requests for government documents are covered by the Minnesota Data Practices Act (MDPA) and the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The most important aspect of these laws as they apply to obtaining government information about the bridge collapse is that the MDPA applies before August 1, 2007 and the federal FOIA applies after the bridge fell. That's because the National Transportation Safety Board has an exemption from FOIA for any "ongoing investigation" so as not to jeopardize that investigation. Obviously, that exemption is broad and severely curtails the information MnDOT can legally provide.

[Adding insult to the injury of not telling readers about MnDOT's legal status in releasing documents is Barnes' snarky column bragging about the paper breaking stories obtained from document requests, "It's our job as watchdogs to hold the state agencies accountable... and they are pretty irritated right now because we are really keeping their phones ringing."]

The other gross omission relates to the Sonia Pitt sideshow. Pitt is the MnDOT employee whose job is to coordinate responses to emergencies but who failed to return to Minnesota for nearly two weeks after the bridge collapse. The Star Tribune tells its readers that Pitt continues to receive her $84,593 salary and accrue vacation time, but doesn't tell readers the answer to the most salient question of "why."

Here's why. Pitt is under a formal personnel investigation and major rules apply such as the investigatee still gets to draw a salary. But the most significant rule in play is that no one at MnDOT (or anyone in state government) can talk about it, and if someone does, that person is personally liable in any lawsuit that may be filed. Wonder whether "A source with direct knowledge of the investigation" quoted by McEnroe and Kennedy in the story knows that.

As the Star Tribune continues its verbal assaults on the character of MnDOT employees in the quixotic pursuit of smoking guns, we wonder whether the paper has contemplated its worst nightmare, which is also the same as the DFL's...

We could link to a zillion stories and statements from key Democrats blaming MnDOT and the Pawlenty Administration but we won't because we all know they are everywhere. The pièce de résistance for Democrats and the Star Tribune is to make the bridge collapse a failure of the Pawlenty Administration. All the animosity toward MnDOT Commissioner Carol Molnau boils down to this issue: The bridge collapse is Pawlenty's fault because he gleefully vetoes all gas tax increases. No New Taxes is dead at the Capitol.

For the Star Tribune, taking down Molnau and/or Pawlenty is a Pulitzer Prize clincher like Richard Nixon's resignation (because of Watergate) was for the Washington Post.

Another part of the nightmare for the DFL and the Star Tribune is the NTSB investigation. The agency's investigation of TWA Flight 800 over the Atlantic in 1996 took four years to complete and despite the official conclusion about an exploding fuel tank, credible people still tout alternative theories.

Obviously, a years-long NTSB investigation with a murky conclusion really screws up the agenda. And, Star Tribune editor Nancy Barnes will likely be long gone from the Star Tribune.

The Pawlenty Administration's agenda is the easiest one to discern: Hope and pray that nobody screwed up. Note that we didn't write "or if somebody screwed up, it doesn't come to light." That's because we think that's virtually impossible in this atmosphere with the stakes so high.

And barring the disclosure of a concrete screw-up, Pawlenty has already accomplished his agenda. The bridge fell, his government responded and he emerged with a 59% approval rating (which by the way, drives Democrats nuts).