By adamg on Wed., 2/11/2015 - 4:22 pm
So it turns out Beverly Scott did drop the mic at her press conference yesterday.
Scott did not specify reasons in her resignation letter, but did praise T workers and said she was proud to have been part of the Patrick administration's transportation team.
She leaves the job in April.
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
She didn't get axed...
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:35pm
...she resigned.
While I agree that she inherited a complete mess, I also can't really point at something innovating that she did to make the mess any better. Can you?
Yeah, yeah, she needs the legislature...blah, blah. I don't buy that. Leaders make due with what they have. There is an expression..."don't fight stupid; make more awesome." That is the kind of person we need for this disaster of a public transit system.
Leaders make due with what
By Scratchie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:07pm
Yes, meaningless platitudes are definitely going to fix decades of neglect. You should definitely send your resume in to the Governor.
And yet...
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:53pm
...you still haven't pointed to one innovative thing she did. Same goes for those before her.
Right, because leadership is
By Noahh
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:13pm
Right, because leadership is what will get more blood from from this stone.
"Leaders make due with what they have" = "Let's not get ahead of ourselves by challenging widely documented systematic failure"
At her level, nobody "resigns
By Lyndsay
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:35pm
At her level, nobody "resigns" in the middle of a debacle like this. They are politely asked to resign, or rather, told to resign, and their contract bought out, or some other deal quietly made for them to walk away quietly and uphold their end of a non-disclosure agreement. That's the leverage they have in this case. I noticed in the Globe article on her resignation that one of the board members made a point that she had not completed her three year contract. So there had to be some sort of buyout/severance for her to reneg on her contract like that and not face repercussions and/or burned bridges.
"don't fight stupid; make
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:39pm
Was that Einstein or Disney who said that?
If you just wish hard enough, it'll come true?
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:53pm
Let's say I put you in charge of an agency tasked with transporting thousands of people each day, and give you the following resources:
- a Trabant (broken)
- $20 in pennies
- a maxed-out MasterCard with a $1000 limit
What's your plan to "make do"? Close your eyes and clap your hands until Tinkerbell comes along? Or are you going to say "I can't do the job you've asked me to do with these resources"?
Cut cut cut
By Stevil
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:52pm
a) figure out your revenue
b) deduct your capital costs - including a plan to get the system up to speed.
c) figure out what's left - tell the unions that's what they get to split - any way they see fit
This is how it's done (and this goes for virtually all government)
How much did it cost to run the system last year
Don't fix anything
Add 3% and give it out for salaries
Find 3% more revenue any way possible
Complain that everything's broken and we need even more money.
Not all the T's problems are their own fault - but saying that there are no internal problems is not the answer either. There was a report (I think Herald) today that they've been spending years building a database just to figure out what work needs to be done - much less doing it. You're telling me that's not a senior management problem?
So, just ignore the debt then?
By ckd
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 8:05pm
FY2014 revenue: $1,879,309,824
FY2014 operating expenses: $1,429,983,519
FY2014 debt service: $435,099,748
(Source)
The only operating expense category higher than debt service is wages, and the FY14 number for that was $450 million -- not that much more.
Now, let's see what $435 million could have bought from the FY14-FY18 Capital Improvement Program list:
$84.0 million for "Track/Right-of-Way"
$185.8 million for "Communications"
and about 70% of the $229.2 million for "Power".
(And these are 5-year numbers, not just FY14.)
I think some of those could have come in handy this past few weeks. Admittedly one year's debt service doesn't come close to the $1035.2 million for "Revenue Vehicles"... but it's more than 1/5 of that number, so it would likely be enough to cover the entire category over the 5 year period.
Here's the problem-or part of it
By Stevil
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:43pm
Operating revenue from 2001 (beginning of forward funding) until 2015 went up by $330 million. Wages - "miraculously" went up by almost EXACTLY that same amount - for what I'm guessing is a similar headcount. Wouldn't we all like to get increases like that.
Sales tax revenues over that period increased by $220 million. Actual principal and interest went up by $140 million. Most of that remaining $80 million got eaten up by operating contracts for commuter rail - again salaries and benefits.
I'd have to dig into a lot more details and get some headcounts etc, but on the surface - this info seems to point out that blaming this on "the Big Dig" debt is a load of crap. The problem is that every time you get an extra dollar - you give it to employees rather than putting it toward capital purchases which doesn't fly in a capital intensive biz. You can get away with giving them 1 out of 2 or maybe 2 out of 3, but in this biz you need to set aside money for capital improvements. It's like the person who decides they want a gym membership, and a cleaning person, and Netflix and goldplated cell service crying when their roof needs to be repaired and they have no money.
This looks a lot like the BPS - oh we're poor, we're poor. Until you look at the numbers and realize that they are only poor relative to themselves last year. Compared to the rest of the world in a similar biz they are Bill Gates.
question
By John-W
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 11:49pm
interesting. Which report(s) are you pulling these numbers from?
Click on "Source"
By Stevil
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 8:56am
In CKD's post - brings up a P&L for the T back to 1991. I use 2001 as a base because that indicates where forward funding began. 2015 is budgeted numbers. All others are actual.
As I said - in the real world people don't get raises, pensions go away and they have to start paying more for health care when the company is struggling (and these days even when the company isn't struggling). In MBTA land they just give everyone what they had last year, plus a little more and then kick the can down the road on equipment and maintenance.
Municipal finance 101
By Markk02474
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:02pm
NOBODY operates debt free! Cities, towns, states, and the fed all use borrowing, so thinking that the MBTA might not is fanciful and bad financial management.
Even then, suggesting any use of funds for expansion is stupid when so much needs repair.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_cov...
good to know
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 12:04pm
So, how about we stop paving anything.
What's your point that nobody
By RhoninFire
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 1:29pm
What's your point that nobody operates debt free. The MBTA doesn't have to be debt free, but spending +$400 mill on debt service is a huge problem. You don't think having the operation budget spending that much on debt service for capital projects (regardless what projects) not a problem?
And again, what you said earlier that the MBTA traded taking on the debt in exchange for the sale tax cut is false. I have noticed that you keep wording in a way that it sounds the MBTA was a player and played an active role. Like some company buying debt and its debt service in exchange they also get the stores. Stop saying that. The state pass legislation to move the debt and dedicate the revenue. The state made the bet the revenue would cover the debt with some on top and thus all will be well. It failed.
That said, the MBTA needs to funds for maintenance, but expansion is also needed too. The MBTA has not truly expanded in 20 years. It is not expansion that is the problem. It's a priority of funds. Funds towards beneficial projects should continue. As well as increasing funds to maintenance. I can agree actions like what Stevil noted can help, but there's other ways than raiding the money set for GLX (much is federal so we can't use it for operations anyway).
Come to think of it, there's has been calls to cancel South Coast Rail. A project that cost more than any of the others while directly benefiting quite a small number compared to just about any other project. Advocating that might get some traction here rather than every response you got so far, but so far you have only talked about GLX (and CFL alot). Why?
Deal push on MBTA
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:24pm
Call the exchange of debt for income for the MBTA a forced deal. What I complain about are people making it sound like debt got forced on the MBTA with nothing in return, which is incorrect.
I don't point out south coast rail for two reasons:
1. GLX hasn't even started yet, so air quality improvements in Somerville since the Big Dig most clearly point out the falsehood of air quality harm projections by CLF.
2. GLX is local to me, affecting me, so I've studied it. I've not studied south coast rail, so don't comment on it, even though both burdens come from CLF. I suppose the dream of CLF is that these rail stations would solve the insufficient capacity problem of the southeast distressway.
GLX would make more sense if it included parking facilities at stations to take more cars off Boston roads and expand MBTA ridership more than a meager 0.5%. Adding parking sensibly would require more road capacity/widening near stations in Somerville and on Rt. 16 which Curtatone doesn't like, so, GLX ends up as far less bang for the buck than it could be. Bang for the buck is vital in public works, and GLX (also) fails there.
We could go into all the money the MBTA is spending on station renovations and electronic status information instead of maintaining the moving parts and electrical components. This shows the MBTA priorities:
Spend money on personnel first. Spend money where it is visible by the public second. Spend money where not seen last. Maintenance falls into that last category and is why we have the problems we do. Giving the MBTA more money doesn't fix its bad priorities.
Defund highways
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:38pm
That would save more than enough money to properly run the system.
The GLX has been started, dolt.
Also, the GLX is NOT OPTIONAL. It should have been done 10 years ago PER FEDERAL CONTRACT.
Believe in trickle down economics?
By Markk02474
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:42pm
Just give the MBTA more money and it will eventually get to the bottom?
Make drivers pay by the mile
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 02/13/2015 - 4:46pm
That will fix all the funding problems. Public transit is vastly cheaper per person per mile.
Instead of all your bullshit "solutions", make drivers pay for their use of the roads. Transit is far less subsidized than driving. Vastly less subsidized per trip.
LOLz at Trabant.
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:27pm
LOLz at Trabant.
Exactly! So why hadn't Dr Scott said
By lodger
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 10:17pm
Exactly!
So why hadn't Dr Scott said "I can't do the job you've asked me to do with these resources"?
I'm a big T user/supporter, and have been following her statements and leadership for a while now, which haven't really shown any sign of crises brewing, as far as I can tell.
Until things got so unworkable they decided to hold the city captive by shutting the whole thing down?
She's in place through April, why this statement now? And again, her reason for leaving is "No comment".
It's inexcusable to cause this amount of disruption, with a 'no comment', then walk away, with another 'no comment'.
Because she probably signed
By Lyndsay
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 8:28am
Because she probably signed some sort of non-disclosure agreement to "resign" and walk away quietly. I used to work in corporate legal services - first thing they do when someone that high up resigns or is fired is check the terms of their nondisclosure and noncompetes.
And the other thing they do...
By anon
Thu, 02/12/2015 - 11:15am
...is walk them out the front door. Didn't happen here.
Who had February 11th
By moxie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:30pm
In the pool?
Damn, I had her lasting at
By Lyndsay
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:31pm
Damn, I had her lasting at least through the weekend. Friday at the earliest. She just bailed!
First comment of article announcing her taking the position
By downtown-anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:34pm
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/09/24/new-mbt...
[quote]
Good luck to the "winner." Hope that he or she understands that accepting this job is career suicide and that the T's problems are beyond the capacity of anyone outside the Legislature to fix.
[/quote]
I think I'll go see what the
By Scratchie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:19pm
I think I'll go see what the comments over at the Herald are like. Oh, wait, no, I think I'd rather pour lye in my eyes.
Well, what a shame...
By Freddy Benson
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:35pm
I thought she was saucy and smart - apparently you can only say "I told you so" so many times before the boss is tired of hearing it. My guess is she came in with promises she could change things, but then ended up in the same old position.
Oh how we long for the days of Dan Grabasskiss...just kidding.
And now its time to spin the
By cleokid
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:35pm
And now its time to spin the "Wheel Of Cronies!(â„¢)" to find out which yes man Baker will appoint to say that everything is fine and let the system fall even more to hell.
$5 on someone with 10+ years
By J
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:55pm
$5 on someone with 10+ years of transportation experience.
Transportation meaning asphalt company, towing company, or smart tolling company
What's Peter Blute doing these days?
By jmeltzer
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:19pm
He has transportation management experience.
Bring back Gidget!!
About Gidget...
By issacg
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 6:58pm
This comment requires me to point out that Massport was then, and is now, by far the best functioning operation in this Commonwealth having anything to do with transportation.
We should be striving to make MassDOT much more like Massport, and I have written too extensively on this site about this to link to it now.
Funny considering every
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:07pm
Funny considering every appointment he has made thus far has be bipartisan and acknowledged as competent?
A song for the occasion
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:38pm
[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24[/youtube]
movie for the occasion
By issacg
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 7:01pm
I can't link to it now, but you know the scene from "Half Baked" that I'm talking about:
"F&^% you, f*&^ you, f*&^ you, you're cool, f**^ you, I"m out!"
Lame
By Sources Say
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:40pm
After being so passionate and fiery yesterday I thought she actually cared about the T. But to just basically say "Screw it, I'm outta here" 24 hours later pretty much proves she was not fit for the job and she was in over her head. Yes, she walked into it a complete mess on her her first day and really stood no chance at succeeding. But I can't help to think that if she had publicly shown that much fire and passion in the past two years then maybe - just maybe - someone on Beacon Hill would have listened to her and attempted to help her fix things.
Or, maybe she's smart enough
By Hyde_Parker
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:43pm
Or, maybe she's smart enough to realize that decades of disinvestment have left the T in the decrepit state that it's in, and it's only decades of reinvestment that are going to restore the system to a functioning state. She might realize that she isn't the right person to be able to navigate the politics of doing that. It's too bad. I like Beverly Scott.
If she was that smart...
By Cutriss
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:44pm
...she wouldn't have taken the job without some kind of assurance that those problems beyond her reach would get fixed.
And even then, you'd have to be quite foolish to not be a skeptic about that.
She probably got those assurances.
By Irmo
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:56pm
And then learned this week how much those assurances are worth.
But..
By Sources Say
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:52pm
She should would have realized all of this at least six months into the job. Why wait until your job performance gets called out two years later to then resign?
"Why wait until your job
By relaxyapsycho
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:57pm
"Why wait until your job performance gets called out two years later to then resign?"
Probably didn't want to walk away from close to half a million dollars for 2 years of "work".
I'll be a sacrificial lamb for that money any day of the week.
Hire me, Charlie.
Um
By cybah
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:06pm
Right. And I bet you'd stay on as long as you could to collect your salary. Anyone would. We all need jobs and income. I
Sorry I've been in her position.. the punching bag.. I stayed for a while but eventually the abuse of being a punching bag gets to you and you just up and leave.
You don't think she was "pushed"....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:44pm
... into resigning? I suspect that it was made clear that Baker would do his best to hurt her future employment chances if she didn't leave immediately.
Personally
By anon²
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:47pm
I think the opposite, as said above she knew what was coming and screwed Baker out of the dog and pony show he was about to pull to CYA. Now all eyes are on him, how does he and his new appointee plan to fix this problem?
It's going to be hard to blame it all on Bev when she's stepping aside and saying "Fine, you try".
This right here!
By sunny
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:59pm
She's a smart woman and probably planned to leave before yesterday. Maybe that is why she was so free with her opinions. I believe that she was going to control her exit.
Bullshit
By Scratchie
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:45pm
You have no idea what she thought or what she was "fit for". She probably saw the writing on the wall and realized that Baker & co had no intention of helping her get the resources she would actually need to fix the T.
Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?
wait...
By teric
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:52pm
the tooth fairy works for keolis, right?
No, it shows that she could
By NancyG
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:45pm
No, it shows that she could see that handwriting on the wall - Baker wanted her out, period. And there was nothing she could do to stop him - he is the governor who holds the purse strings; he had already cut the MBTA's budget. A protracted battle would have harmed the MBTA, so she bowed out. A smart and gracious move on her part.
You don't actually think
By anon
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 4:49pm
that she is resigning voluntarily? This is the price she is paying for being "passionate and fiery."
Beam her up, Scotty
By John-W
Wed, 02/11/2015 - 5:21pm
Do you think Charlie really wants to look like a mean guy at this early point in his governorship? The paper has been full of praises of the "New, Nice" Charlie of the second run as opposed to the "Angry, Grumpy-pants" Charlie of his first gubernatorial run. He very intentionally wooed women and people of color (unless he really does enjoy doing the Elaine Benes dance in Roxbury). Now he's gone and chased off everyone's favorite granny of color with the folksy sayings and the tell-it-like-it-is (I think if I'm following this odd elephant metaphor) attitude. And if he replaces her with someone who looks a lot like him...well, one step forward two steps back, image-wise.
The other part that the media has assiduously avoided, especially Steve Syre's piece in the Globe yesterday, is the role Baker played in the whole Big Dig debt fiasco. Not all him, but he was a key player at the time and that should be brought up in the context of a better than a third of the budget going to service debt.
All in all, I think Charlie really got the poopy end of the polecat on this one. Remember Chuck, if this is your first time at the rodeo, don't try and eat all the elephant all at once, if you want to fly like an eagle in the morning... lord jesus.
Pages