Why didn't the Board find out about Metro's denial to Tri-State Oversight?

Transit

Why didn't the Board find out about Metro's denial to Tri-State Oversight?

by David Alpert • November 19, 2009 11:25 am

We know that Metro refused to let a safety oversight board access live tracks. So why didn't anyone tell the General Manager or the Board?

Photo by Alicakes*

Metro originally denied this request in May. After that, there was a major crash, followed by the deaths of several track workers. All along, the Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) was writing increasingly frustrated letters to Metro safety officer Alexa Dupigny-Samuels and getting rejected. But neither Dupigny-Samuels, her supervisor Emeka Moneme, or anyone on the TOC saw fit to tell the Board about this issue.

This morning, the Metro Board interviewed members of the Tri-State Oversight Committee and discussed the recent problems. Many Board members zeroed in on the clear communication failure here. Why, asked Jim Graham, didn't they go to the Board once they received the denial?

One of the TOC members replied that that they didn't have a relationship with the Board at the time, and now they are considering what communication process to establish, such as a quarterly report to the Board or annual meeting with the Board. That's a fairly bureaucratic answer. This could have been better: "Mr. Chairman, you're right. In the future, we will not let any process or bureaucracy get in the way of our mission to ensure safety. If we think there's a problem, we will come to you right away."

The TOC also didn't communicate the problems to their bosses, such as the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, who could have passed along issues to the Virginia representatives on the Metro Board.

Alternate board member Gordon Linton noted that Metro might have had some reasons for denying TOC's request. While they got the blame for rejecting the request, if a TOC member had died on the tracks, the Metro safety personnel would have taken the blame as well. Dupigny-Samuels also said that the refusal was meant to keep the TOC members safe, not to shut down their efforts. She said Metro was trying to work with them to find ways for them to meet their needs, such as observing from the cabs of working trains or monitoring during existing work zones.

Whether Metro was right or TOC was right, this decision clearly shouldn't have been confined to TOC, Dupigny-Smauels, and Moneme. Even John Catoe didn't hear about this until the recent firestorm, he told the Board. Someone at TOC or at Metro, or both, should have realized that this was important enough to pass up the chain.

The Board established a new policy that staff should bring to the Board any letters between themselves and TOC where Metro is denying a TOC request. But this is a broader problem. Whether on SmarTrip or safety, the prevailing culture within these organizations is to undercommunicate instead of overcommunicate. That's a recipe for disaster when, as in these cases, the far-reaching and important decision reached without communication or input turns out to be a really poor one.

7 comments — Share	— tags: Emeka Moneme, Metro safety, Tri-State Oversight, WMATA

Catoe to replace four WMATA executives (Dec 12, 2009)
Can oversight help transit safety without hurting transit? (Nov 16, 2009)
The Price of Safety, part 1: Track workers face danger (Oct 2, 2009)
The Price of Safety (Sep 29, 2009)
Breaking: Fenty to name Albert to Metro Board (Sep 11, 2008)

Comments

At what point do we say we've had enough. Graham is the Chair of the Board. In spite of his stellar record on constituent services for W1, we are all his constituents and he has failed us spectacularly.

Oppose Ward's reelection. He needs to understand that the approval of Catoe's contract was the straw that broke the Metro Riders backs.

Anyone but Graham.

by Say NO to Graham on Nov 19, 2009 12:02 pm

So, TOC members wanted to walk on the tracks during revenue service?

I get that there are communication issues here that WMATA needs to work on, but I can't say that denying regular suit-and-tie office workers permission to walk on active rail tracks during busy hours is a bad thing.

It's more telling that they weren't able to work out a compromise.

by Alex B. on Nov 19, 2009 12:07 pm

I went to the U of Michigan and it's very decentralized. I worked on a course evaluation project and we had to get permission from each dept. I figured out that if we just sent letters to the chairman of the dept. that it could be ignored, tossed in the wastebasket. But if we sent the request to the chair of the committee as well as every member of the executive committee of the academic dept., that it wouldn't be ignored, that someone would bring it up even if the predilection would be to otherwise ignore it.

For the most part, with this method, we got every dept. to participate eventually, with only a few compromises.

It is pretty amazing that the TOC is so bad and understanding how to communicate and how to get what they need.

It is also amazing that a request like this wouldn't go to the "executive management" not just the safety officer.

On the other hand, we would expect that the safety officer would want a great system including great oversight. But clearly there are breakdowns within WMATA, complicated by the significant constraints on TOC in terms of funding and authority.

by Richard Layman on Nov 19, 2009 2:55 pm

It wasn't just a case of suit & tie guys walking the tracks. They had already taken Metro's "track safety class" and were willing to be escorted by WMATA employee(s). They sought to observe first hand whether wayside workers were signalling train operators to proceed and whether train operators were slowing in work zones--a procedure WMATA implemented after the deaths of 3 track workers several years ago.

To put it in perspective, WMATA escorts contractors onto the right of way during revenue hours on a regular basis.

It is difficult for me to understand any reason to deny the TOC access other than "we don't want these guys mucking around." Perhaps that's too harsh--but WMATA's explanations contained no substance.

by kreeggo on Nov 19, 2009 5:20 pm

Ditto to Kreeggo.

by Dennis Jaffe on Nov 19, 2009 6:29 pm

I think the cultural dynamic particularly at Metro that so seriously needs to be changed is lack of responsiveness and lack of initiative -- both as it relates to interactions among staff and also with the public.

Along the lines of:

* "Well, we can't do that ... this is how it's always been done. You can't just go and change ... "

and

* "Don't bring that up. The boss wants things to go smoothly. You bring this up, it's gonna cause waves. And then one of us will wind up getting blamed. Don't open your mouth, and we won't have to deal with the fallout."

by Dennis Jaffe on Nov 19, 2009 6:39 pm

Any bets how this will end?

No heads will roll. No one will get fired. They will all come up with some sort of meaningless compromise and say the problem has been fixed. Everyone keeps their job. Nothing changes.

"A dog barks, and the caravan moves on." - Mencken

by Mike S. on Nov 20, 2009 8:39 am