In response, Senator Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, clutched his report and announced, "Twenty years of excuses and inaction have led to this."
Indeed it has. The blame can be placed amongst many individuals. Elwyn Tinklenberg, former MnDOT Commissioner is equally to blame.
The Fiscal Year 2000 report, from the Office of the Legislative Auditor found that Tinklenberg's office:
The department should verify that the federal Davis Bacon Act minimum wage requirements are met. The report cited three state projects where payroll records weremissing for some of the subcontractors. The audit report recommended that MnDOT obtain the missing payroll records and review the records for compliance with theminimum wage requirements.
The department should improve controls to ensure compliance with certain environmental regulations found in Minn. Rule 7001.0150 and the federal Clean WaterAct. The report cited improper disposal of materials on one state project. The internalauditors recommended that the department ensure that appropriate inspections are madeand appropriate documentation is kept on the disposal of materials.
The department should revise its policies to ensure compliance with Minn. Stat. Section16C.05 regarding contractual payments. The report cited payments that were made ontwo state projects prior to the execution of supplemental agreements. This finding wasalso reported in the two previous audit reports.
The department should improve controls over concrete production reports and clarifyconcrete aggregate quality assurance testing requirements. The audit report cited threestate projects with missing or incomplete weekly concrete reports.
So, his office was in violation of prevailing wage laws, the Clean Water Act, had non-competitive bid contracts, and problems with concrete aggregate.
I wonder if this is when Tinklenberg began his infatuation with cancerous Taconite tailings?
The Fiscal Year 2001 report, from the Office of the Legislative Auditor found that Tinklenberg's office:
The Department of Transportation (MnDOT) did not ensure compliance with federal
and state reporting requirements for the removal and disposition of hazardous buildingmaterials.
The Department of Transportation and HennepinCounty engineers did not properly control lead paint residue removed from bridges.
The Department of Transportation did not ensure an independent appraisal of qualityassurance and quality control requirements for bituminous production for one of itsstate aid projects.
The Department of Transportation did not ensurecontracts were properly executed prior to payment.
The Department of Transportation did not follow orensure compliance with certain contract permit requirements.
More Tinklenberg led MnDOT contract problems?
The Fiscal Year 2002 report, from the Office of the Legislative Auditor, found that Tinklenberg's office:
The Department of Transportation did not ensure certain transportation financial
activity was fairly presented on the state’s financial statements.
The department did not ensure compliancewith federal and state reporting requirements for the removal and disposition of hazardous building materials or bridge lead paint residue.
The department did not follow orensure compliance with certain contract permit requirements.
The department should improve certain project oversight procedures.
It should be noted that 3 of these citations were not properly followed up on by Tinklenberg's office, hazardous materials removal, contract requirements, and project oversight.
Honestly, I now know why Tinklenberg doesn't care whether or not he registers as a Federal Lobbyist.
He is simply above anyone's authority.
Senator Murphy is right, 20 years of inaction has done this state no good. Unfortunately for Elwyn Tinklenberg, he has not been a solution, he's been a part of the problem.
1 comment:
Were there large cost over-runs on the light rail? I seem to recall that. Corner cutting on projects, and over runs - all that seems to be a culture of inattention. Or a culture of not caring about the rules.
Was there the excuse being made at the time, the budget causes our inadequate staff numbers, we are overworked, etc. - the "feather-bedding will fix it" excuse - in response? Or just a stone wall?
In fairness to Tinklenberg, I am unsure how any MnDOT management inadequacies would impact a Congressional position where there is only office and a small staff to run, and it is not an administrative or managerial situation.
What it suggests to me, however, is that the "experience" in MnDOT was not a positive thing except for building contacts later exploited in Tinklenberg Group contracting. Not what you know or how you operate, for MnDOT contract compliance - but who gets the contracts. Is it a "who you know" mentality that has carried over and is shown by Tinklenberg's mention of Oberstar frequently, and his presumptive comments about when he will be on the Transportation Committee, etc.? As if anticipating some fiat acomplati even before the party endorsement process has run its course.
Then, his website now has issues puffery, but the only implementation idea I really have seen Tinklenberg come up with is getting on the Transportation Committee and working with Oberstar. That is all I see him saying, in terms of implementation thinking.
He has a spending solution, and has been selling funding pull to municipalities since incorporating Tinklenberg Group in 2002. Other than allocating money, what real ideas does he have for where we, as a nation, should be going two, five, or twenty years into our future? He is weak on high tech matters, more a pour the concrete we don't need all that testing mentality - and educated as a minister and not an engineer running MnDOT.
It is almost as if he believes he does not need that "vision thing," that Jim Oberstar or somebody will supply his ideas for him. Just send him to DC and there will be milk and honey.
Post a Comment