I commented about it, with links to original MnDOT released materials and other original sources, here. It was a somewhat thorough presentation. Have a look. I shall not repeat things now.
Within the last week or two, a pair of fairly well reasoned consciously paralleled GOP blog posts are noting similar things.
Here. Title, "What Did Tinklenberg Know, and When Did he Know It?"
And here. Title, "Tinklenberg Vetoed Fixing I-35 Bridge?"
That is posing the question. What exact role and knowledge did Tinklenberg have? Did he affirmatively nix things, or was he sleeping at the switch?
Or was he prudent and proper, as he should be wanting to establish - wanting to make some affirmative showing of his tenure, and things known and done.
More briefly, another GOP blog, same theme, note this.
It is a theme the GOP blogsphere is picking up. It probably will intensify.
But are they missing one main point?
The MnDOT released emails, so far as they stood when I last looked, date of that referenced June 14 post, show lower level functionaries worried more about "today's issue" rather than the "big picture." By that I mean, issues of deicing technology on that bridge deck were bouncing around at intermediate MnDOT responsibility levels when the bridge structural integrity, per the contract proposal the two blogs mention was also tendered to MnDOT - with Elwyn Tinklenberg at the head of the organization, installed there the prior year. I did not see any released email trail about the structural proposal from the contractor in the email trail, nor about the study done by the one U. Minn. researcher saying replacement of that bridge could safely be postponed. And nothing in Tinklenberg emailings from that time has yet been released. Unless I misread the MnDOT documentation. My earlier post had the link over to the MnDOT materials.
I have two concerns that go beyond what the two GOP blogs have noted.
First, the U. Minn. researcher's report, what totality of circumstances need vetting?
Was it intended to whitewash a deficiency known in the bridge to postpone replacement expense so that light rail could be pushed as THE LEGACY ISSUE front burner, with all else, bridge safety included, back burner?
A sub-part of that question, was the U. Minn. thing inspired as a second-opinion thing to analyze the contractor's proposal, and if so, why no mention of gusset plates? Why only focusing on or primarily focusing on the decking? If the structural submission of the contractor was in hand, wouldn't the U. Minn. researcher's tasking logically have included that? If it was consciously excluded, why?
Now, second, the more fundamental question. Similar to Howard Baker's insistent Watergate investigation question that the one GOP blog renews, regarding Tinklenberg's tenure heading MnDOT. What did Elwyn Tinklenberg know and when did he know it? There's a ring to the sound of it. Sub-question, what did he choose to do and why?
However, I think an even more basic question is if Tinklenberg claims no part of the decision making then, not having knowledge or a role, why in the world was he not atop things, doing things, doing his job?
It seems to me it would be more damning of his management and leadership potential, what he wants to sell to Sixth District voters as cause to elect him, if he later will say, "It never percolated up to me, so that nothing could trickle down."
Quite simply, it should have. If it did not percolate up sufficiently but got lost in the hands of intermediaries, then the man at the top was not doing his job since his job is to set up operations so that the big questions don't get lost but reach his desk.
It is something like Harry Truman's motto, "The buck stops here."
IF you are doing the job, the buck stops at the top. If the buck stops lower, never getting there to the top, the the job's been grossly and inexcusibly mishandled.
It would be worse if a complete vetting of things shows that the only thing trickling down - and this would reflect badly on both Elwyn Tinklenberg and Jesse Ventura - if all that trickled down was "Build light rail," with Jesse telling Elwyn that and Elwyn saluting and saying, "Yes sir" with nothing else deemed important enough for Elwyn's attention.
If communication was deficient, and Tinklenberg intends to hide behind that as somehow exculpatory, he is dead wrong. It would be more damning because it would have been his job to assure that kind of loss of top-man responsibility and being in the relevant "loops" would not happen. The chief runs the tribe, not the indians.
And a major, major and serious worry - why have Tinklenberg's MnDOT emails not been put up on the MnDOT site? They indicate they are culling and sorting. Things related to the bridge are, allegedly, being found and posted.
Hey, if that is saying Elwyn had no email relevant to the bridge - what's to be made of that? Why not? Publish all his MnDOT email, to show what he WAS spending his time doing if not worrying about safe roads and bridges for the citizens. Put it all up, and do that now. Why the delay, why the "indian emails" when the first and big and relevant question leading to this November is the "chief's emails?"
And that has to mean the entire email record. Every email in. Every email out. [Also, every letter in, every letter out, every diary or calendar entry, etc.]
Ron Carey should get a brain and the GOP bloggers should also. They should be making an incredible noise - beyond what did he know, what was he doing, while his agency had information critical to the question of bridge safety? But also -- Who were his advisers, and what email advice and information were they giving him? What were his orders and requests? How did he assure he'd be "in the loop" when things clearly needed his having that status and concern?
All of that is relevant to whether it was Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Instead of calling Elwyn Tinklenberg a liberal [false] out of touch with the mood of his district [likely true, certainly so in my judgment], Ron Carey and those bloggers should be hounding the bureaucrats at MnDOT to post the man's management history, without editing, all of it and sooner rather than later.
We voters are owed that --- to know the truth and to vote accordingly.
Indeed, Elwyn Tinklenberg should be leading the charge, "Exonerate me, show them the entire record. Show the people the truth." That's how Teddy Roosevelt would have reacted. Also Harry Truman. Any self-assured man would eagerly publish the record.
His strange silence that way suggests a knowledge or belief that showing the record might not be exculpatory, but rather an implication into mismanagement or possibly something worse, whitewashing the truth to not have to lessen the push for light rail. Light rail and the bragging rights wanted later, in politics, for the legacy.
Leadership is making the hard decisions, not the easy ones. It is passing up a shot at bragging rights if the best priorities say replace or fix that bridge, at its cost, and then look to see how money for other pet projects could be attained.
That is the difference between leadership and posturing. I expect the generals running Iraq would be more concerned with being assured the ammunition issued troops did not misfire, than with the shine on a desktop or on cerimonial brass, and having the flags pressed and staged before press conferences.
It is priorities that we should see, as they were set and managed.
And all that is public data. It should be discoverable upon GOP request, under Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. But don't just hand it over to the GOP. Post it on the MnDOT website.
Anything less is ducking the issue. What was Elwyn doing, what did he know, when did he know it, and how did he handle what he knew and assuring he would be told in timely ways of the important not cerimonial aspects of his job - running MnDOT?
Back to my earlier post. What Elwyn Tinklenberg knew or should have known. The "should have known" thing is key. It was his job, no more, no less, to be on top of his job. "Nobody told me," would be an admission of deriliction of duty. Misfeasance.
Bottom line: The one thing we know for a certainty. Elwyn Tinklenberg cashed every paycheck given him while he headed MnDOT.
