|
|
Letter from James R. Grande, June 16,
1998
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on my
involvement in the Scheme Z mitigation project, or in my
terms the Black Hole in the financial structure of the most
significant and ambitious construction project in the
history of the Commonwealth and probably the country.
You have my name and the fact that I was on the committee
to mitigate the crossing, more specifically I represented
the Greater Boston Building and Construction Trades Council.
My involvement was not anonymous so neither are my
comments.
It is my belief that you have described Fred Salvucci
quite well in the brief paragraphs that I have read. You
miss however the ridicule that was directed at him as he
planned and did the necessary groundwork to present this
project, or at that point more appropriately, "his dream" to
the powers in place at the time. As I seem to recall, there
were no large institutions ready or willing to carry his
banner into the political arena where this battle would
eventually take place. The Building and Construction Trades
of course were there, but as everyone knows, we are "a
special interest group." I believe you almost hit the nail
on the head when you mention the fact that he landed smack
between two powerful opposing political administrations who
had a great dislike for each other and I'm being kind. The
incoming Republican administration of Governor Weld had no
use either personally or professionally for the Democratic
administration of Governor Dukakis. The record of course
shows that many projects suffered because of this,
especially the entire transportation system from
reorganization to design to construction. (Please compare
the qualifications of Fred Salvucci and his administration
to all of his subsequent successors to this day.)
Though I voted with the majority to abandon Scheme Z, it
was with the understanding that all parties involved with
this project would work together to come to some agreement
with the following major issues foremost in our
deliberations: Design safety, a maximum of two designs to
recommend, expeditious effort and cost of project. There was
a consensus around the committee that even the slightest
increase in the cost of the project would place it in
serious jeopardy. Though we were given assurances that the
administration could deliver, I was not convinced and
neither were many that I talked to. It was this sort of
thing that led me and others to believe that they were not
interested in our work. I hope that my disgust for the way
our work has been trashed by one egotist, with the obvious
concurrence of the last two governors, is coming through
loud and clear. Though I am now retired, I am still a
citizen of this commonwealth and a taxpayer who continues to
watch and speak out whenever the opportunity presents
itself. It is unfortunate that we must grab every forum such
as yours, but I don't believe you would be giving a true
historical account if you didn't report the total cost of
that mitigation committee at the very least. I did not keep
my meeting notes due to the insult I felt from this
administration, so I am speaking from memory and that is not
always best.
Consider if you will the number of years, meetings, hours
that the committee utilized paid staff. For example, the
various Secretaries of Transportation, the several (as many
as six) engineers, the project director, the paid firms such
as Dispute Resolutions, (the correct name escapes me but it
is Mr. Wofford's firm). Also secretaries and stenographers
who kept the record. Consider also the engineering that
provided the many, (sometimes as many as fifteen) right of
way drawings in color that were available at every meeting
hung on the walls. Each measuring at least four feet by ten
feet. I haven't yet commented on the printing, copywork and
paper produced for every member of the committee, as well as
observers at every meeting.
Does all this sound as though I've been waiting for your
call? Well you're wrong but you are allowing me an
opportunity for some relief without my rolaids.
Back to the subject at hand. If my memory serves me, it
seems that we were forty two concerned citizens, who came
together weekly as a public service. I was truly impressed
with some of the people, professionals who gave of their
time freely. I must note that they/we were jammed into a
room at least half the size of one that was needed, but they
were there faithfully.
I won't try to recall all the issues covered during those
many months but I picked up a comment which you attributed
to, "an unnamed project official" regarding Cambridge
threats to sue. Again speaking without notes, I believe that
I was the one who made the comment. I may have said
something about the shadows being cast upon the "park" but
the gist of my remarks had to do with Cambridge inserting
itself into a suggestion by Boston which had to do with the
crossing from Storrow Drive, and how it would effect traffic
around Charles Street etc. I felt that Cambridge had a lot
of gall since it appeared to me that at that point in time
they successfully ran traffic across the Mass Avenue Bridge,
refused to talk about traffic on Memorial Drive and yet
wanted to be involved in traffic from Storrow crossing the
Charles on the Cambridge/Charlestown line. I don't believe
that I was sympathetic with Boston's position at the time
which was in favor of a tunnel. Nevertheless I bring it up
only because I did feel that it was a bit of "highway
robbery" on Cambridge's part. I never felt that they offered
anything to the process but politics, nor did I feel their
community would be hurt. They had already won all the
concessions they asked for regarding the configuration of
ramps north of Lechmere.
One final comment in closing. I want to state
unequivocally that the committee would never have come to
any agreement without the strong leadership of the
chairman/moderator, sometime dictator, sometime referee, Mr.
Stanley Miller. Single-handedly he managed to maintain a
steady course and a constant focus on our objective, as
elusive as it may have seemed. The other person who should
have taken a great deal of space in your paper was a man
whose name escapes me though he was always there when
dealing with the committee, he was there for the committee,
unions, employers, and minority groups, on issues of
construction forecasts, as well as safety and training
issues. The He that I am making reference to was the Manager
for the Joint Venture, I believe he was from Bechtel. I wish
I could recall his name but no doubt it is a matter of
record. Not nearly as aloof as Zuk.
As a final note for the record, should you need it. I was
formerly the Training Director for the Operating Engineers
Local Four Apprenticeship and Training Program. A position I
am proud to say I held for thirty years, until (union)
political differences caused my termination.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer my comments into
a very serious matter which I regret to say, has not
received any attention.
|
|