Accident or crime?
A WOMAN died when the Big Dig ceiling collapsed a little over a year ago. It's understandable that the public, not to mention the family of Milena Del Valle, wants to see justice done. But what constitutes justice? Is it a criminal conviction against a company that might go bankrupt in the process of defending itself? Or is it significant cost recovery that compensates the victims and also the state for any future costs of maintenance and repair? How best to restore the shattered public trust in the Central Artery project and the government that conceived it? And how does one goal relate to the others?
Attorney General Martha Coakley is taking a risk in filing a manslaughter charge against the Powers Fasteners company. An exhaustive National Transportation Safety Board review did determine last month that the use of a Powers "fast-set" epoxy to bolt the three-ton panels to the ceiling of the Interstate 90 tunnel was the probable cause of the ceiling collapse. But that's only the start of a daisy chain of events also involving the workers who actually applied the epoxy, the engineers who signed off on the product, and the inspectors who came up with conflicting explanations for why the anchors weren't holding. And, as Coakley admits, the maximum $1,000 fine if Powers is found guilty is almost absurdly inadequate as punishment.
At the same time, the state is pursuing civil cases against Powers and other firms with a hand in the ceiling collapse. A criminal conviction requires a higher standard of proof than a civil claim, so if the state can prove the epoxy company guilty, clearing a lower bar of proof in the civil cases ought to be easier. That in part explains why Coakley has "sequenced" her investigation to determine criminal culpability first. But overreaching is also a danger, and a loss could weaken her hand in civil negotiations.
It is premature to judge the many competing claims in this case, including whether the attorney general has a conflict of interest because her office is simultaneously pursuing criminal and civil charges against Powers, as the company alleged yesterday. Much of this will be sorted out in court. The important thing for Coakley is to be as transparent as possible within the constraints of the grand jury system and to keep the interests of the Commonwealth above any others, including her desire to produce a scalp.
One avenue that we hope bears fruit is what Coakley describes as a "global resolution" to satisfy both the Del Valle family and the state's taxpayers. That would involve bundling together the various federal, state, criminal, and civil cases into a large settlement, perhaps $500 million, that could fund a sort of endowment to cover maintenance of a project that was clearly not built to the highest standards.
Settlements are rarely pretty. But if Coakley and federal officials eventually produce an outcome the public can feel is both competent and fair, that too is valuable compensation.
