Why did MBTA’s single largest contract fail to appear on its board of directors’ January open meeting agenda? 

The MBTA Board of Directors voted Wednesday to exercise the final option on the MBTA’s contract with the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail Co. MBCR will operate commuter rail for the transit agency until July 2013. The board approved the contract in a 3 to 0 vote, with chairman John Jenkins abstaining because of prior business dealings with the company. (Vice chair Janice Loux was not present at the meeting). According to a MBTA press release, the transit agency plans to launch a procurement process for a new commuter rail services contract in 2012.

However, in a curious move by the MBTA, the $560 million commuter rail contact did not appear on the open meeting agenda. The agency posts the agenda 48 hours before a board meeting so stakeholders, concerned citizens, and the news media can review the rundown, follow up with agency officials and members of the board, and attend meetings to offer comments. But the commuter rail contract was presented as an additional item known as a “walk-in.”

According to MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo, board members found out earlier this week that the contract would be “walked in.” The directors started to get detailed briefings on the contract more than one month ago and Acting General Manager William Mitchell briefed the board at its December meeting, he added.

Pesaturo said that the MBCR contract negotiations began last summer and were being conducted “right up until [Tuesday] night.”  “The procurement and transition process takes 18 months,” he said in an e-mail exchange.  Asked why the contract couldn’t have been placed on February’s open meeting agenda, Pesaturo said “17 months is less than 18 months.  That’s why [a] decision was necessary this month. If the board chose not to pick up the 2-year option, then the procurement process would have to begin immediately in order to have a contractor on board July 1, 2011.”

That consideration is scarcely an emergency that would require a “walk-in.”  By not posting the contract on the open meeting agenda this month or waiting to post it on the February agenda, the MBTA cut commuter rail riders and other stakeholders out of the process.  How would board members find out commuters’ views on MBCR operations if no one outside the MBTA knew that the contract was going to be reviewed?

Board member Elizabeth Levin did due diligence, asking John Ray, the MBTA Director of Rail Operations, who presented the contract, what commuter rail riders would have to say about MBCR’s performance. But MBTA and MassDOT officials should not stand in for commuter rail riders.

Was there a concern at the MBTA that the process for a more than half a billion contract was less than transparent? “The proposed contract was discussed in the presence of dozens of people, including five reporters and a television news camera,” Pesaturo said.  “You could hardly describe that as ‘less than transparent.’ “

The MBTA also issued this statement from Mitchell late Thursday:

Because the contract was still being negotiated the night before the Board meeting, it was not placed on the agenda. Placing the item on the agenda may have left MBCR with the impression that they no longer had to negotiate with the MBTA, and I feel that the T’s bargaining position would have been weakened as a result.

But I also acknowledge the need for letting the public know as much as we can about MBTA operations, and for that reason, I regret not finding a suitable way to let the public know that the contract may be discussed by the Board.

At the first meeting of the new MassDOT board in November, Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Mullan said, ”To our stakeholders, I promise transparency in how we work, how decisions are made, and who is empowered to make decisions, and a civic engagement commitment to address the multitude of issues that must be faced in our enterprise.”

At best, MBTA officials’ decision not to place the MBCR contract on the open meeting agenda raises questions about why the agency failed to steer its largest contract in a way to assure timely public input. At worst, it is a deliberate circumvention of the process of public scrutiny that flies in the face of Mullan’s pledge.

This is not the first time the new MassDOT regime has failed a transparency test. In December, the MassDOT board approved $22.7 million in federal stimulus grant funding and $11.3 million in MBTA bond revenue financing for the Wonderland Parking Garage project in Revere. That project also did not appear on the open meeting agenda.

Gabrielle covers several beats, including mass transit, municipal government, child welfare, and energy and the environment. Her recent articles have explored municipal hiring practices in Pittsfield,...