MTA DENIES ANY LASSITUDE
IN DEALING WITH SECURITY,
BUT SNAILS TRAVEL FASTER.

By Henry J. Stern
July 13, 2005

YOU MAY THINK WE ARE PAYING TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO ANOTHER MTA SQUABBLE.  IT'S BORING.      BUT THE ISSUE OF PREPARATION FOR A POSSIBLE TERRORIST ATTACK MAY AFFECT THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORKERS,  INCLUDING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.


"There are two sides to every story."   That was the slogan of John J. Anthony, who had a radio program on WOR before and during World War II.  He responded to phone calls from listeners, and gave them common-sense advice.  As children we learned the line, and relied on it in family disputes.
 
Dr. Anthony's slogan resonates today as the MTA responds to the allegations published yesterday that it bungled a security contract with the US Army.  MTA Chair Peter Kalikow gave Sewell Chan a ninety-minute audience yesterday and offered reasons why the Army contract that former MTA police chief Louis Anemone was working on (when he was fired for other reasons) was not acceptable to the transit agency.
 
This leaves the public wondering whom to believe.  Neither Anemone nor Kalikow have much street cred, so we are most likely in a Rule 30-T situation, "The truth lies somewhere in between."  We observe that London has 6000 surveillance cameras in their underground, which proved very helpful in identifying the bombers.  In fact, it was their last photograph.  New York City has very few cameras, if any, unless they have been installed in secret, so as to give bombers a false sense of security.  

Were there issues of access to the system and payments on the contract, as the MTA contends, or was the agency simply indifferent to security matters, as one former official now says?  These conflicting reports are discussed by Julie Moult and Rich Calder on p21 of today's Post, WHY MTA NIXED DEAL WITH ARMY.  
 
If the Army offer was unsatisfactory, why didn't the MTA take it up the military chain of command, or pursue intervention by elected officials, as is suggested by Joshua Robin on A14 of today's Newsday?  Delaying much of the plan, as the MTA appears to have done, may have been a decision informed by fear of litigation with the disaffected Anemone and his deputy,  which could disincline the agency from approving anything they suggested.  With the lives of its passengers at stake, the MTA must be more concerned with safety than with lawsuits.
 
The contretemps merits an impartial investigation, possibly by Investigations Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn, or by a Moreland Act Commission, which would be appointed by Governor Pataki.  That group could look closely at a series of MTA scandals that occurred years ago, including the leasing and reconstruction of 2 Broadway.  The Governor, however, is highly unlikely to look into 2 Broadway, either the legal manipulation involved in taking a lengthy lease rather than ownership, or the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in excessive costs of alterations, for which four men have already been convicted.  
 
The Times' handling of the accusations and the denials also raises issues.  On Tuesday, a story prominently featured at the top of B1 recites serious allegations against the MTA.  On Wednesday, another story by the same reporter, receiving the same highly visible placement,  refutes the charges which the Times published the day before.

Did the MTA refuse to talk to Sewell Chan prior to the publication of Tuesday's story?  Why is the chairman, accompanied by technical staff, suddenly available for a 90-minute interview?  Did the MTA complain to Times' editors, demanding to tell their side of the story?    
 
Another question: assuming the Army contract was unacceptable, why did the MTA not proceed promptly on its own to arrange for anti-terror measures?  Were all the previous ideas unworkable?  Was there nothing else the MTA could have done for passenger safety?  Is there anyone they can find to work out complex technical issues besides former police brass?
 
Our reaction to the successive contradictory stories:  "We've heard both sides.  Now let's hear the truth."  The problem is: NOT only does the public not know the truth, but the MTA probably doesn't either, nor is the beleaguered agency likely to tell the whole truth if it reflects poorly on their employees or managers.
 
The subject of terrorism in the subway system is too important to be left to timeservers who justify the status quo and exaggerate the difficulties of change.  Chan's articles, presenting one side each day, have put the public on notice that "Houston, we have a problem."  We can only hope that the MTA's dalliance on passenger security and anti-terror modifications does not worsen what may be an enormous tragedy.