Rochester Coalition Sues Federal Railroad Administration over DM&E Documents
by Leigh Pomeroy
The Rochester Coalition and the Mayo Clinic filed suit today in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C., asking the Federal Railroad Administration to turn over documents related to the DM&E railroad requested in a Freedom of Information Act filing made by the group 10 months ago. By law the FRA was supposed to respond within 20 days of the original request.
The FRA finally answered the Rochester Coalition six months after the April 2006 FOIA request, saying that it had located the documents but could not release them until the DM&E reviewed them for trade secrets. The FRA gave the railroad until Nov. 20, 2006, to complete the review. To date, the DM&E has not responded to the FRA's request and the FRA has yet to release the documents to the Coalition, which triggered the lawsuit.
"The public needs to be able to see what the Department of Transportation is doing with hard-earned taxpayer funds; currently there is absolutely no transparency in this process," said Stephen Ryan, legal counsel for the Rochester Coalition and the Mayo Clinic. What the Rochester Coalition wants to know is "who owns the company" and other basic financial information, said Jake Reint, spokesperson for the Coalition.
The DM&E is requesting a $2.3 billion unsecured loan from the FRA for a railroad expansion project so that it can haul coal from Wyoming to markets in the Midwest. The railroad currently has revenues of about $200 million per year and services South Dakota, southern Minnesota and northern Iowa.
The Rochester Coalition and the Mayo Clinic filed suit today in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C., asking the Federal Railroad Administration to turn over documents related to the DM&E railroad requested in a Freedom of Information Act filing made by the group 10 months ago. By law the FRA was supposed to respond within 20 days of the original request.
The FRA finally answered the Rochester Coalition six months after the April 2006 FOIA request, saying that it had located the documents but could not release them until the DM&E reviewed them for trade secrets. The FRA gave the railroad until Nov. 20, 2006, to complete the review. To date, the DM&E has not responded to the FRA's request and the FRA has yet to release the documents to the Coalition, which triggered the lawsuit.
"The public needs to be able to see what the Department of Transportation is doing with hard-earned taxpayer funds; currently there is absolutely no transparency in this process," said Stephen Ryan, legal counsel for the Rochester Coalition and the Mayo Clinic. What the Rochester Coalition wants to know is "who owns the company" and other basic financial information, said Jake Reint, spokesperson for the Coalition.
The DM&E is requesting a $2.3 billion unsecured loan from the FRA for a railroad expansion project so that it can haul coal from Wyoming to markets in the Midwest. The railroad currently has revenues of about $200 million per year and services South Dakota, southern Minnesota and northern Iowa.
Labels: DM and E, FRA, Mayo Clinic
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
I'm not surprised. The FRA is secretive and ornery. After the $233 million dollar loan was granted I called the agency to speak with the designated historical preservation officer for the agency. I had gotten the name from a MN State Historical Preservation Officer, Dennis Gimmested, who has the name of the person to contact for every federal agency out there for preservation issues. The person at the FRA told me it was none of my business what the DM&E was doing with the money or how it affected historic preservation. It didn't seem to matter that that was their job or that it was a federal loan. I called Sen. Dayton's office and explained the problem. About a month later the FRA officer called me back and sweetly answered my questions. Do I have confidence the FRA will do the right thing without threats? No.
Karla Johnson
The Star-Tribune weighed in with an editorial today.
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1014428.html
The Strib sentiment is right but thier judgement is extremely optomistic. There are a handful of Congressmen vocalizing concern, but legislation needs to go through committees that may be stacked against making any changes to legislation that was passed for 2005. Secondly, the House and Senate have different bills, so even if anything is passed, it would require a conference bill.
The clock is running on this and too often the Bush Administration has been quick allow business to do what it wants.
Post a Comment
<< Home