County won’t release full report
By Gregg Wendorf
Advance News Journal
When The Advance mentioned last week in a front-page story that the public now has full access to an independent report that will tell us why the new Hidalgo County Courthouse is still a mess, our bad. We were wrong. Instead, the county has that info on lockdown, with no plans to release it any time soon. Not unless the Texas AG rules that they must.
For now, all the public has access to is a slim four-page summary, done by Houston-based Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc., (WJE), which basically highlights some of the major flaws tied to the new $200 million (give or take) structure: the roof, problems with the stucco, window sealant, to name a few.
The Hidalgo County Commissioners Court hired the firm this past April to dig deep into the new courthouse, uncover all of the mistakes (five inches instead of six, that sort of thing), and report back to it the full damage.
In other words, what needs to be fixed, replaced, installed, and get the new $200-million courthouse up and running? Close down the old courthouse and get staff moved into the new digs.
At the time, four months ago, the new courthouse was either five months behind schedule, or two years, based on whose calendar you were holding and what day of the week it was, but by then, people were already whispering, “This thing is really messed up.”
Exactly to what degree, well, that’s what the WJE report was going to tell us, the taxpaying public: What’s the damage?
Maybe nothing. Maybe something small, maybe something big, maybe something small. By the way, WJE’s boilerplate reads: “American corporation of architects, engineers, and materials scientists specializing in the investigation, analysis, testing, and design of repairs for historic and contemporary buildings and structures.”
Meaning, presumably, wherever there is a problem, these guys, or women, are going to find it.
So what did WJE find after studying the completed structure inside and out for approximately two months, approximately?
We don’t know, nor shall we if the AG rules in favor of Hidalgo County.
Huh?
Public Info? No
Well, in late May of this year, a high-ranking county source told us on the record, under condition of anonymity, that the WJE report should be done by month’s end. Then it dragged into June. He also said, when asked, that he expected that once the report was released by WJE, it would be made public. By the sound of his voice, it appeared to be a case of: Why wouldn’t it be made public?
After all, many argued, it’s a public project backed by public dollars.
That, however, is not the way this played out. Instead, Hidalgo County is withholding the full report from the public, seeking an opinion from the Texas AG, under the wide-as-a-canyon section in the Texas Public Information Act (PIA), which allows a public entity to withhold from public scrutiny anything deemed “confidential commercial information.”
Only problem with that is, the PIA doesn’t define “confidential commercial information.”
Yes, agreed, that is helpful.
Pretty much an all-encompassing term, it’s used to withhold a vast amount of public info under many guises, such as pending litigation.
Pending means forever?
Let’s Google its definition: “Awaiting a decision.”
“Forever” if that’s what the people withholding the info want, and they can get an AG assistant attorney to rule in their favor.
Before that happens, though, the AG can wait a total of 30 business days to rule on the request.
Thinking that the full WJE report would be released “any day now,” because our county source had sounded so certain (before the lawyers had time to gather) in our prior discussion (not his fault), The Advance never filed (mea culpa) a public information request with Hidalgo County when it was finished circa June/early July (date needs fact-checking).
The Monitor, however, did file one, only to find out that county officials have decided not to make the WJE report public unless the Texas AG rules they have to.
How many bathroom stalls, steps, etc., are ADA compliant? That’s supposedly a big question mark (did they re-do the outside steps two, three, or four times, allegedly to pass ADA compliance?). If there is any mold, inside the place, how bad is it?
Even the four-page summary doesn’t sound promising: Under “Roof,” for example, it reads: “The majority of the roof covering and flashings appear to be in FAIR CONDITION (emphasis intentionally added), with isolated areas in POOR CONDITION.”
So, bottom line, what’s wrong with the courthouse when you get down to the nitty gritty?
Nobody’s talking about this train wreck, so it’s impossible to say.
At least not publicly.
The Advance did, however, file a public information request with the City of Edinburg, seeking building inspection reports, failed inspections, related to the new courthouse.
In a job of this size, if there aren’t daily reports written by the general contractor, there are weekly reports, said one of our construction sources, and then other reports written by the project manager, the architect, with all parties meeting at least monthly, if not more often.
So what happened?